Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ALLOTMENTS (PRODUCE).

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Minister of Labour whether unemployed persons can take on allotments for growing food in war-time, with the assurance that the amounts from any sales from surplus produce will not be deducted from their insurance benefits; and what will be the position of similar persons receiving payment from the Assistance Board?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As regards unemployment benefit, no deductions would be made, and a claim would not be affected by the fact of the claimant working on his own allotment. As regards unemployment assistance, I am informed that the practice of the Board is to make no deductions on account of produce consumed in the household or of cash sales which are merely occasional. I will send the hon. Member a copy of a poster on the subject which is exhibited in Employment Exchanges.

Mr. Morgan: Does that mean that in effect the unemployed man can take up an allotment at the present time with a good deal of assurance that his position will not be penalised?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member looks at the poster, he will see that he himself has rendered a service by calling attention to this matter.

Mr. James Griffiths: Would the right hon. Gentleman secure this consideration to those who make regular weekly sales of the produce of their allotments?

Mr. Brown: I would not like to give a definite ruling on that, but if the hon. Member would like a precise statement—

I think that one was made some 2½or three years ago—I would be very glad to make it.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the fact that a man working on an allotment is entitled to an amount of 3s. 4d. a day?

Mr. Brown: I would like to know the precise terms.

Mr. Montague: Will this excellent scheme of land settlement be continued after the war?

Mr. Brown: That is looking a long way ahead.

Mr. Attlee: In view of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman realise that whatever the regulations might have been two or three years ago in peace-time, they should not be the same in war-time, when we are urging everybody to produce food?

Mr. Brown: These things were in mind in peace-time, and if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the arrangements, he will find that it has been found satisfactory and helpful.

BUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men are coming before the rating authorities and before the justices, owing to the defaulters belonging to reserved occupations, such as the building and kindred trades, in which they are unable to obtain employment and yet, owing to this being their normal occupation, they are refused registration for training in the manufacture of munitions; and can he either vary the instructions with regard to their registration or take some steps which will enable them to meet their liabilities?

Mr. E. Brown: Men are not accepted for training in the Government's training centres if they belong to occupations which, for the purposes of recruitment to the Defence Services, are reserved on account of their immediate or prospective importance to industry. In the case of the building industry, most skilled occupations are thus reserved at certain ages, but men in the occupations of plasterer, house painter, gas fitter, steel bender and fixer and ironworker for ferro concrete, and foreman roofing felt fixer are permitted to join any Service as volunteers. I have decided that such men


may be accepted for training in the Government's training centres.

Mr. Salt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that carpenters are not mentioned in that number, and that there are cases of carpenters who have never been out of work before, who cannot pay their rates or meet their commitments, and yet are unable to get work in another trade; and can he do something to assist these men?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will understand that the situation is a difficult one and that the word "prospective" gives a hint of the nature of the problem. It is true that in certain parts of the country, owing mainly to the suspension of house-building, there has been the great difficulty in plasterers and such like people finding work immediately, but that may not be so in a short time if certain things should happen.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night there were 50 unemployed builders' labourers of military age asking Members of Parliament to do what they could to find work for them?

Mr. Brown: We are fully alive to this problem, which is the reason that we have made this arrangement since the war, and the hon. Member will understand that this is beyond the original arrangement in the Schedule of Reserved Occupations.

Dr. Haden Guest: Will not the list of reserved occupations require revising, in view of the fact, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that substitute building materials are being used instead of wood?

Mr. Brown: There is no reason why it should not be revised after inter-departmental discussions, and discussion with the Joint Council, whose advice we regularly have.

Mr. Windsor: rose—

Mr. Speaker: There is a large number of Questions on the Order Paper.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can increase the age at which persons are now debarred from registration for training in the manufacture of munitions from 45 to 50?

Mr. E. Brown: Men over 45 years of age can be accepted for training in the Government training centres, provided they are sufficiently fit and handy to take full advantage of the course.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour what is the scale of fines exacted from trainees at the Ministry's training centres; for what offences they are imposed; how many trainees have been fined since 1st September to the last convenient date; and what is the aggregate sum obtained in fines?

Mr. Brown: Small deductions from special pocket-money allowances paid to men in training at Government training centres are made in respect of loss of shop tools, persistent lateness and other breaches of centre rules. There is no scale of fines, which, however, in no case exceed the amount of the pocket money allowance which is 5s. I regret that the statistics asked for by the hon. Member are not available.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not a very undesirable practice to have a system of this character at these training centres?

Mr. Brown: Certainly not. It is a wonderful thing. It is the only sanction the manager has to maintain discipline, and I assume that discipline is necessary, even in the Red Army.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible to get what is wanted, not necessarily discipline, but co-operation at training centres without introducing undesirable methods of this kind?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member does not understand the operation of the training centres. I know that some of the Communists have recently begun to take an interest in the centres, whose many years' work have been attended by great and increasing success. This has been the only sanction, and it is necessary in order to ensure that co-operation which the hon. Member now says he wants.

Mr. J. Morgan: The Minister is not suggesting that this is equivalent to serving in the Red Army?

Mr. Brown: Certainly not.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of discon-


tent at the Park Royal training centre owing to the reluctance of the center's officers to grant passes to the trainees for the purpose of visiting the Unemployment Assistance Board's offices when they have applications to make regarding the amount of their allowances; that officials of the centre try to dissuade trainees from making such applications, on the grounds that their claims are hopeless; that such persuasion has on several occasions been brought to bear in the case of men with broken footwear during this year's spells of severe weather; and what steps does he propose to take to put a stop to these practices?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. All bona fide applications for leave to interview U.A.B. officials are granted without delay. If, however, the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I will have it investigated.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, following dissatisfaction at the Waddon training centre arising from the infliction of fines, one trainee there recently took action against the accountant of the centre, as a result of which the Department paid the fine and costs into court; and why, in view of the fact that the plaintiff's solicitor stated that the object in bringing the case was to test the legality of deducting fines from unemployment insurance benefit paid to trainees, the Ministry took the above course to prevent the matter being raised in open court?

Mr. Brown: I am aware of these proceedings. No deduction was made from the unemployment insurance benefit payable to a trainee at this centre, but a deduction of 2s. 3d. was made from his pocket allowance. This was the value of a shop tool which had been lost. In the circumstances, in order to avoid litigation at the present time, it was decided to pay the money into court, but without the admission of any liability.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that they paid the costs in order to keep the matter out of the courts, because a court case would have been a complete exposure of this rotten method?

Mr. Brown: There is no reason whatever why I should facilitate the propaganda of the Communist party.

Mr. Gallacher: Might I ask the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I am making the contention that there is a bad and rotten method—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: No point of Order arises. The hon. Member should ask questions and not make assertions.

Mr. Gallacher: I was asking a question, but instead of answering it, the Minister says he does not want to give propaganda to the Communists.

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on.

ASSISTANCE (WINTER ALLOWANCES).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Assistance Board are prepared to extend the period during which winter allowances are paid in view of the exceptional severity of the weather in recent months?

Mr. E. Brown: The Board inform me that they do not consider that the circumstances call for any extension of the period during which winter additions are being paid this winter beyond the date which has been communicated to the House and to each applicant concerned.

Mr. Griffiths: Do I gather that the circumstances due to the exceptional winter weather in recent months do not call for consideration?

Mr. Brown: The House will understand that it was announced that payment would be made from 30th October to 30th March, and the Board see no reason to alter that. As the hon. Member knows, I received a deputation yesterday, and I indicated that view to them.

FARM LABOUR.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to facilitate the transfer of farm labour from one district to another, in view of the number of farm workers registered as unemployed and the acute shortage of skilled farm workers in many districts?

Sir Annesley Somerville: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will, in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, take steps, well in advance, to organise an increased number of women


workers to deal with sugar-beet production, and to develop cultivation of early vegetables over a wider area, so as to reduce the importation of vegetables?

Mr. E. Brown: I am in consultation with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture on the labour requirements of the agricultural industry for the coming year, and my right hon. and gallant Friend is already engaged in preparing schemes for supplementing the normal labour supply. I can assure my hon. Friends that the local offices of my Department will co-operate to the fullest extent in the recruitment of labour as required in the different areas.

Sir P. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps he can take to let these young fellows of 18 or so know that they can do useful and interesting work on the land in the interval before they are called up?

Mr. Brown: I shall do all I can to assist the decisions to which my right hon. and gallant Friend comes, but it is the responsibility of my right hon. and gallant Friend to supplement the labour supply for agriculture.

Mr. Butcher: Will the Minister consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in order to make sure that opportunities for women workers are not diminished by evacuation schemes?

Mr. Brown: That would not be for my Department, but for my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who is now going into all the circumstances for the supplementation of the labour supply.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people will be welcome in the Highlands of Scotland, where we require a labour force, as women are unable to cope with the amount of work that they have to do already?

Mr. Brown: It is not only Scotland but the whole country that is making this great effort.

EMPLOYERS' RETURNS.

Mr. Duncan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the waste of paper and time by employers having to fill in three forms when an employé leaves their service; and will he arrange for all

the required particulars for the Employment Exchange and the Unemployment Assistance Board to be included on one form in future?

Mr. E. Brown: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the routine inquiry from an employer for the reason why a worker left his employment. Current instructions provide against duplication of inquiries by the Ministry of Labour and National Service and the Unemployment Assistance Board in such cases. I am having investigation made into the circumstances of the case about which my hon. Friend wrote to me.

SKILLED WORKER.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. C. Maw, 36, Warren Close, Doncaster, a skilled aeroplane worker has been registered at the Doncaster Employment Exchange as an unemployed man since November, 1939; and why it has not been found possible to place such a skilled man in suitable war work by this time?

Mr. E. Brown: I am informed that Mr. Maw was last employed for a period of about two years on the doping and varnishing of aeroplane wings and on making tail units for wooden sail-planes. Previously he had been employed on work as a painter, bricklayer's labourer and relief postman. He has been submitted without success for work for which he was considered suitable, and efforts will continue to be made to find him employment commensurate with his skill.

Mr. Morgan: Is the Minister aware that this man carries a high record from his employer for aeroplane work and also that he applied to go into the Army and could not be taken in as he was in an exempted occupation?

Mr. Brown: We will do our best for him.

Mr. Kirkwood: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is necessary for skilled aeroplane workers to be able at the moment—[Interruption].

BENEFIT.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Labour how many insured persons, who have had their benefit stopped owing to refusal of work, are now receiving un-


employment assistance on as high or higher a scale than benefit?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Miss Rathbone: Is there not a considerable number of these cases?

Mr. Brown: I could not say. No such record is kept and could not be obtained without combing the whole of the register.

Miss Rathbone: Is there nothing to prevent a man refusing a job and getting higher U.A.B. assistance without any inquiry as to why he lost the job?

Mr. Brown: That is a theoretical question, but I have no reason to think that even if it happened, the number of cases would be considerable.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can estimate the extent to which the overlap between wages and unemployment benefit or assistance due to the fact that benefit and assistance are supplemented, as wages are not, by family allowances, will be increased by the higher allowances recently given?

Mr. Brown: I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL POPULATION.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has given consideration to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of Industries, in particular, those regarding the future activities of the Commissioner for Special Areas; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29th February.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that an authoritative statement ought to be made as soon as possible?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will see that this does not lie with me, and that I am responsible for only a section of this very vast problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL REGISTER (STAFF).

Mr. Maxton: asked the Minister of Labour how many members of his staff have been engaged in the compilation of the Central Register; how many are now engaged in the work of selecting persons for appointments in the Civil Service; and whether these officers are regular members of his staff or have been specially recruited for this work?

Mr. E. Brown: The number of staff engaged in the compilation of and placing from the Central and subsidiary Registers has varied from time to time according to the flow of work. The maximum number employed at any time on the whole work of the branch is 124. The number of staff engaged full or part time on selection is 28. In a number of sections these officers, all of whom are regular members of the staff, are assisted by panels of the professions concerned, who give their time voluntarily. Since last December Sir Walter Moberly has combined his duties as chairman of the University Grants Committee with the general supervision of the work of the Register. His services in both capacities are given without remuneration.

Mr. Maxton: Are any of these extra staff transferred from the staff of the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir; they are regular members of the staff of my Department.

Mr. Maxton: What experience have they had in the past of this sort of work? Have they had any experience in selecting professional people for professional appointments?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member does not seem to have appreciated my answer about the committees which give their time in this matter, and have from the beginning helped to build up this professional register in consultation with the panels.

Mr. Maxton: The point I want to make is this: Was there not at the Civil Service Commission's Department a staff trained and experienced in selecting this class of professional worker, and are not experienced men already available in the Civil Service?

Mr. Brown: I do not believe that at all. The hon. Member puts the emphasis in the wrong place. I set up this register
for the purpose of making available for all Government Departments, and indeed for war-time industry, the knowledge as to men and women of exceptional capacity in all kinds of professions and occupations, so that if necessary they might be invited either to leave their present occupations and enter occupations necessary for the conduct of the war, or fill an urgent appointment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOTBALLERS (SCHEDULING).

Mr. W. A. Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into the circumstances in which from 12 to 18 players of the West Bromwich Albion Football Club, with no previous knowledge of the work, have been given employment with Messrs. Accles and Pollock, tube manufacturers, Oldbury; whether he is aware that experienced men of several years' service with this firm have had to meet their military service obligations; and whether he will give particular attention to the suggestion of preferential treatment implied by the scheduling of footballers as munitions workers when it is clear that they have no claim whatsoever to such a description?

Mr. E. Brown: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister in making inquiries elicit the fact that a director of this firm—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

BUSINESSES (RESPONSIBILITIES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the increasing number of cases of severe hardship among owners of small businesses through inability to dispose of their businesses when conscripted or through inadequate periods of postponement; that this will increase, even more seriously, as higher age groups are called up; whether he proposes to take any action to secure more equitable treatment for these men; and whether he has any record of the total number to date of the appeals on business grounds, the number of rejections, and the number and periods granted of those who were allowed postponement?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that the higher age groups will include a greater number of owners of small businesses who will desire to make applications for postponement, but I consider that the provision made by Regulation 2 (2) of the Armed Forces (Postponement Certificates) Regulations should be adequate to meet such cases. Up to 29thFebruary, out of 8,772 applications made on the ground of business responsibilities and interests, 5,190had been granted for varying periods up to six months and 3,582 rejected. Out of 214 applications for renewals, 125 had been granted and 89 refused.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in fact no rules can extend beyond a maximum period of 12 months, and, in view of the fact that an increasing number of the small business men have sunk their small capital in small concerns and are in danger of losing the lot, could he not reconsider the question?

Mr. Brown: I am aware of the first part of the hon. Member's Question. I informed the House in a recent Debate of that matter but, as I said in my answer, I am sure the present arrangements are adequate.

MILK PROCESSING.

Mr. Robert Morgan: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of employés in the different works employed in processing milk; and how many will be taken if no exemptions are accorded to key men?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to-day to a Question on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge).

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST PAMPHLETS.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to various pamphlets designed to hamper the national effort to win the war being distributed in the country by the Communist party of Great Britain; and whether he will exercise his powers to prevent their distribution?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): Yes,


Sir, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that by general agreement the Defence Regulations were so drawn as not to interfere with the ordinary propagation of opinions. A close watch is being kept on this kind of activity, and if there is any breach of the law, suitable action will be taken.

Sir A. Southby: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that great apprehension exists among all loyal citizens of many political persuasions at the continued efforts being made by this party to interfere with the national effort?

Sir J. Anderson: I would point out that there may be other methods of dealing with this mischief than by invoking the criminal law.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not the reply of the right hon. Gentleman give more satisfaction than the Supplementary Question of
the hon. and gallant Member?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that these pamphlets represent a great national effort to get rid of this Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ALIENS.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary what proportion of enemy aliens in this country and France, respectively, are at present interned?

Sir J. Anderson: As I have stated on previous occasions, the majority of Germans and Austrians in this country are refugees from Nazi oppression. The latest figures show that some 74,000 persons of these nationalities are registered with the police. The total number of enemy aliens now interned in this country (including those removed from ships) is 1,959. I regret that I have no information about the position in France.

Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in order to ascertain the position in France I put the Question to the Prime Minister, who passed it on to my right hon. Friend, and will he be good enough to make inquiries?

Sir J. Anderson: I will consult my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary what proportion of the enemy aliens ordered by tribunals to be interned have

been released; and of those released, how many are subject to restrictions, Class B, and how many are unrestricted, Class C?

Sir J. Anderson: Of the 572 enemy aliens interned on the recommendation of tribunals, 58 have been released subject to compliance with the special restrictions applicable to enemy aliens and 75 have been released without being required to comply with these special restrictions.

Mr. Keeling: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the chairmen of the tribunals are consulted before their decisions are upset?

Sir J. Anderson: Before a decision of the tribunal is reversed, the report of the tribunal is considered, but I would point out that the final responsibility in these matters rests with me, and I must exercise some discretion as to the inquiries I make before coming to a decision.

Miss Wilkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite a considerable number of people have been interned who have given ample proof of their anti-Nazi opinions, and the fact that they are interned really represents political prejudice? Will he make a review of cases of this kind?

Sir J. Anderson: I really cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member. I am always prepared to consider any representations which may be made to me, and it is well known to aliens who have been interned that they have a right to make such representations. When necessary, I refer these representations to the Advisory Committee so that I may have the benefit of another opinion.

Miss Wilkinson: Do I understand that if I give the right hon. Gentleman cases and proof of the anti-Nazi views of men who have been interned, he will promise to give them his personal consideration?

Sir J. Anderson: I will certainly give them my personal consideration, but it must be remembered that proof of the anti-Nazi views of anyone may not be a sufficient reason to release them.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAGISTRATES' COURTS (SITTINGS IN PRIVATE).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the appre-


hension often resulting from the trial by magistrates of cases in camera, he will issue a circular explaining to magistrates the discretion which they possess, and the need for caution in the exercise of their powers to hear cases in camera?

Sir J. Anderson: The case which I think the hon. Member has in mind is one in which the magistrates were not trying a case but were conducting a preliminary examination with a view to deciding whether the accused should be committed for trial on indictment. In these cases I am advised that justices are not required to sit in open court; but it is the general practice to do so, and I agree with the view expressed by my predecessors in office that justices should not sit in private save in exceptional cases such as those in which they are satisfied that the publicity given to these preliminary proceedings will prejudice the ends of justice. The importance of maintaining the policy of publicity for these proceedings is, I am sure, well understood by justices, and I do not think it is necessary for me to issue any circular on this matter.

Mr. Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that this particular procedure frequently gives rise to harmful rumours, both as to the nature of the charges involved and the identity of the persons concerned?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (NEW BUILDINGS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Home Secretary what action has been taken up to date under Section 33 of the Civil Defence Act, under which he is enabled, after taking professional advice, to make regulations to render new buildings less vulnerable to air raids?

Sir J. Anderson: No regulations have yet been made under Section 33 of the Civil Defence Act, though some of the principles which would be incorporated in such regulations are being adopted in the construction of new munition factories and some other buildings. In view of the urgency of other questions of structural protection and the reduction in ordinary building under present conditions, full consideration of this matter has hitherto been postponed, but the proposals of my technical advisers will be

discussed in detail with the Building Technical Advisory Committee in the near future.

EVACUATION.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to ensure that householders in seaside resorts will be freed from their evacuees during the summer season in order that they may be enabled to accept their customary holiday visitors and so pay their rents for the year?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): The extent to which it may be possible to carry out the suggestions of my hon. Friend during the summer season must depend on the local circumstances and on the extent to which the billeting authorities may be able to re-arrange the billets in the area. It is largely a question of householders being prepared to co-operate with the billeting authorities by helping one another.

Sir T. Moore: Can my right hon. Friend make some suggestion to local authorities by which these unfortunate people will be able to live?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. We have made suggestions to them, and they are at present carrying out the compilation of a roll by which, let us hope, it will be possible for some rearrangement to take place.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement respecting particulars of the new evacuation scheme; and how many schoolchildren have now been sent or, approximately, will be sent during the next three months to school camps in connection with evacuation?

Mr. Elliot: The registration by the parents of children in the evacuation areas and the enrolment of householders in the reception areas are proceeding, and the travelling, billeting, medical and educational arrangements are being worked out at conferences between the evacuating and receiving authorities. As regards the second part of the Question, arrangements are being made at the moment for the occupation of 22 camps, each capable of taking parties of 250 to 290 children. Of these camps, four are already in occupation, containing 754 children.

Mr. Sorensen: Shall we have an early opportunity of discussing this matter and


receiving some report as to the progress of the scheme?

Mr. Elliot: That is not a question for me.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether any decision has yet been reached concerning extra billeting allowances for evacuated teachers?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) on 12th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY TRADING (MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the large number of men on service and munition workers stationed in or passing through Monmouthshire, who are accustomed to the normal Sunday facilities of an English county, he will consider their convenience, now demonstrated by the use of clubs, by temporarily granting reasonable facilities for refreshment to be served on Sundays in Monmouthshire licensed premises?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot find that war-time conditions justify a departure from the deliberate decision of Parliament embodied in the Licensing Act, 1921, as to Sunday trading in Wales and Monmouthshire.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will my right hon. Friend represent to the Minister of Transport the desirability of arranging cheap excursions on Sundays from Monmouthshire to Plymouth?

Sir J. Anderson: I have no doubt that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport will take a note of the suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (RENTS).

Mrs. Hardie: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to stop extortionate rents being charged in and around cities, as these high rents make it impossible for soldiers' wives and others with limited means to live on their incomes?

Mr. Elliot: The rents of all houses withing certain limits of rateable value, including sub-let parts of houses, were controlled by the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, which became law last September. I do not think that further measures are necessary.

Mrs. Hardie: Is the Minister aware that a great many houses are not covered by the Act? Is it not time that a more comprehensive Act was passed to deal with the matter, as under the present system these people have no defence against landlords, and the procedure means that the Government are subsidising high rents?

Mr. Elliot: The matter is controlled by Acts of Parliament to a limited extent, and special assistance is available to the dependants of a man serving with the Forces where they are otherwise unable to meet their financial obligations.

Mrs. Hardie: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman does not meet the point. The Government are subsidising high rents. The point is that Government money is going to landlords in rents which are too high. Will he look into the matter in view of the considerable feeling and anxiety which exist?

Mr. Elliot: In getting out of one difficulty, you may get into another and a greater difficulty, but I am, of course, prepared to look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASTE PRODUCTS (SALVAGE).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that all, or the large majority of local authorities, have adopted, or are preparing as quickly as possible to adopt, schemes for the systematic sorting, collection and utilisation of the various forms of household waste; and, if not, whether he is prepared to exercise compulsion in the matter; and whether he will issue a statement showing the progress made and the steps taken in this matter?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 13th March to Questions on this subject by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) and the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor). I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is furnishing a state-


ment of progress made, which will be circulated in the Official Report.

Sir Stanley Reed: Is the light hon. Gentleman aware that while tens of thousands of tons of waste paper are being wasted here, whole cargoes are being imported from Sweden?

Mr. Elliot: That shows the great desirability of anti-waste measures being pressed to their fullest extent, and, as I have said, I understand the Ministry of Supply is circulating a statement to-day.

Miss Rathbone: Although the Minister of Supply is giving us a statement, does it not rest with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to exercise compulsion if necessary; and, considering the long time which this has been going on, are we not entitled to know that it is not left to the voluntary effort of obstinate and sluggish local authorities?

Mr. Elliot: I am glad to hear the hon. Lady's whole-hearted enthusiasm for compulsion.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SANITARY POWERS).

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain local authorities are using the war to put into force sanitary powers which they have possessed for years, but on which they have hitherto taken no action; and whether he will circularise local authorities advising the postponement of the enforcement of the powers in question?

Mr. Elliot: I am not sure what precise powers my hon. Friend has in mind, and I should be glad if he would let me have particulars of any case which may have been brought to his notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (SPEECHES, BOTH HOUSES).

47. Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to enlarge his choice of future Ministers, he will consider taking immediate steps to enable Ministers sitting in either House of Parliament to speak in both while restricted to voting in one?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I can only say that I have noted my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Sir T. Moore: As this is a very important matter just now, may I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? Does he think that the adoption of my suggestion could be achieved by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament; and does he not realise that the adoption of my suggestion would give him a pool of very great ability and experience from the other House which does not actually exist in any quarter of this House?

Mr. Mander: May I put a question to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot spend any more time upon this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL EXPENDITURE.

Sir R. Clarry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate proportion of the whole of the country who are now dependent directly and indirectly on money obtained from State and local authority sources such as the services, pensioners and all war expenditure?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am afraid that it is not possible to obtain the information which my hon. Friend desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIES' WAR EFFORT.

Sir R. Clarry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to bring more forcibly to the notice of the general public the vital necessity of personal sacrifice and maximum war effort to maintain the economic front, he will consider issuing a detailed statement showing the effort being made by every class of the community in France; in particular, their rates of pay in the services, stabilisation of wages, the heavy war contributions from munition workers of military age, the reduction of non-essential purchases of luxuries and imported commodities, together with the practical spirit of thrift and national desire to prevent anyone from being better off due to war conditions; and whether he will institute a campaign to encourage emulation by our people?

Sir J. Simon: I am sure our people recognise the extent of the efforts and sacrifices which are being made by every class of the community in France. There is need for equal efforts and sacrifices here, nor are they lacking. They do not necessarily take the same form in each of the two countries, but they are inspired by the same spirit.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (TRADING COMMISSIONS).

Mr. Salt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider inserting in the next Finance Bill a Clause to the effect that any commissions paid by a trading concern shall not be allowed as an expense for taxation purposes unless the receiver's name and address is disclosed?

Sir J. Simon: The question whether a particular payment is admissible as a deduction in computing for Income Tax purposes the profits of a trade falls to be determined by reference to the consideration whether, not being of a capital character, it represents expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the trade. As to the powers of the Revenue to require particulars of commissions paid by a trading concern, I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1939.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.

Lord Apsley: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, under the prevailing quota system for each county, in some cases valuable pasture up to 100 years old and worth £50 an acre for fattening stock is being ploughed up, whereas in others, seven-and eight-year old worn-out leys, worth £5 to £8 an acre, are being neglected; and how he proposes to remedy this anomaly before too much damage has been done?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): The minimum amounts of grassland to be ploughed in each county for this year's harvest were fixed with due regard to the varying conditions of farming in different parts of the country. The ploughing of a certain

amount of good grassland was unavoidable, but the actual selection of the land to be broken up rests with the county war agricultural executive committees, which are composed of practical agriculturists acquainted with the local conditions and needs, and I am confident that these committees may be trusted to carry out their task with due discrimination.

Lord Apsley: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in many counties where arable farming and seed leys preponderate, there has been a quota not sufficiently large to get those leys ploughed up, whereas in other counties valuable pasture worth £50 an acre is being ploughed up compulsorily?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There is no maximum quota, and no reason whatever why these leys should not be ploughed.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the dilemma which many farmers find themselves in, as to whether they should plough up grassland towards the end of March, 1940, which cannot secure anything for the 1940 harvest, he will, notwithstanding, advise farmers to do this, since some of it may become productive in 1941?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would invite the attention of my hon. Friend to the reply given on 15th March to the Question put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and in particular to the last paragraph of the reply.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Minister let me have a copy of that reply?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: If my hon. Friend will look it up, I think he will find it highly satisfactory.

Lord Apsley: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend instruct the county committees to concentrate on giving priority in ploughing to worn-out seed leys before they attempt to plough up valuable permanent pasture?

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Minister think de novo on this matter, because I know the answer to which he referred, and I am not satisfied?

TILE DRAINAGE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection


with the maximum output being obtained from the land, he will consider giving some financial assistance, through the county war agricultural committees, to agriculturists for the purpose of providing tile drainage where mole drainage is ineffective?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The grant-aided scheme for mole drainage was put into force in order to deal expeditiously with the heavy land problem. Having regard to the cost, time and labour involved in tile drainage, it was felt that any scheme of financial assistance could not operate, to any extent, in time for the 1940 harvest.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is much that is left undone and not provided for in the war Agriculture Act, and can he tell us whether he proposes to bring in a comprehensive scheme that will conduce to the maximum output being obtained from the land? Is he aware that what is being done is no good, and that something more must be done?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's statement that the Act is no good. For instance, the Act gives a grant for mole drainage. The question of tile drainage is a matter for consideration.

CHEMICAL MANURE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increased shortage of animal manure on many farms owing to the recent slaughtering of livestock through lack of feeding-stuffs, he is taking steps to ensure increased production of chemical manure as an alternative to maintain the fertility of the soil?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I do not accept the implication of the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, but the answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. De la Bère: Surely, my right hon. and gallant Friend must have realised that he cannot annihilate the real truth by not accepting it? Is it not a fact that these animals have been slaughtered, and that adequate livestock is the absolute key to successful agriculture?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am afraid I cannot always accept my hon. Friend's sweeping statements.

Mr. J. Morgan: Is it not a fact that the pig population is falling?

PUBLICITY COMMITTEE.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the names and qualifications of the persons constituting the Publicity Committee for his Department; the respective salaries paid; whether any of such persons continue to hold paid positions in connection with commercial journalism; and with what papers and in what capacity?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As was announced on 6th September last, I have appointed the following persons to advise me on matters affecting publicity and intelligence in connection with the Government's campaign to increase home food production:

Mr. R. W. Haddon (Chairman), Managing Director of Farming Papers.

Mr. Laurence F. Easterbrook, Journalist.

Mr.Cleveland Fyfe, C.B.E., Secretary, National Farmers' Union.

Mr. W. Gavin, C.B.E., Agricultural Adviser.

Mr. Anthony Hurd, Farmer and Journalist.

Mr. Cedric Drewe, M.P.

These gentlemen are acting in a purely advisory capacity and receive no payment as members of the committee.

Mr. Morgan: I gather that we may take it that they are entitled to contribute to outside papers, but will the Minister take into account the fact that the correspondents of other papers do not like correspondents of rival papers having the first feed of the news?

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give us some assurance that there will be no continuation of this hush-hush business?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There is no hush-hush business.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

CENTENARY POSTAGE STAMPS.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Postmaster-General when the centenary postage stamps will be on sale; and for how long the issue will be available?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Captain Waterhouse): The centenary postage stamps will, I hope, be on sale at all post offices throughout the country on and from Monday, 6th May, for about two months.

POSTAL HISTORY SOCIETY (EXHIBITION).

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office will take part in the exhibition which is being held by the Postal History Society, at Bournemouth, from 6th to 11th May, in aid of the Red Cross Fund, as an alternative to the International Exhibition?

Captain Waterhouse: My right hon. and gallant Friend has already promised to lend the British Government stamp exhibit for display at the centenary exhibition which is being arranged by the Royal Philatelic Society in aid of the Red Cross Fund and will be opened in London on 6th May, and regrets that the Post Office has no other items of rare philatelic interest which he could see his way to lend for display at the Bournemouth exhibition.

FRANCO-BRITISH STAMP.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Postmaster-General whether he now has any statement to make on the issue of a Franco-British stamp?

Captain Waterhouse: As a result of the discussions I have had with the French Minister of Transmissions, who came to this country for the purpose on Monday last, general agreement has been reached in regard to the issue of a joint Franco-British stamp. It is hoped that the issue may be made in the autumn.

Mr. Mander: Has any decision been come to as to the design? Is it proposed to make a new design, or to use an existing one, such as was used at the time of the King's visit to Paris?

Captain Waterhouse: It is proposed to issue a new design, but as all designs have to be approved by the King, the House will not expect me to say anything more about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE.

WAR MATERIALS (SOVIET PURCHASES).

Lord Apsley: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare what information he

has as to the increased traffic in Army oil and other war materials from the United States of America to Russia via Vladivostock; and what steps he is taking to ensure that none of this war material is passed on to Germany?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Cross): I understand that Soviet purchases of oil in the United States during the year ended 1st March, although much above 1938 figures, are not in excess of quantities imported in some previous years. There is, however, evidence of large Soviet purchases from the United States of America of other war materials, especially of copper, and this question is receiving the constant attention of His Majesty's Government.

FEEDING-STUFFS (BALKAN COUNTRIES).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he is aware that considerable quantities of feeding-stuffs have been offered in Balkan countries to His Majesty's Government; that when His Majesty's Government refused to buy them they were bought by Germany; that Germany has since sent them to the Scandinavian countries against payment in dollars; and whether, in view of the short sea route and the paramount need of such feeding-stuffs in this country, the question of price was the deciding factor, or whether any effort was made to divert these supplies?

Mr. Cross: As regards the first part of the Question, some feeding-stuffs have been offered in Balkan countries to His Majesty's Government, but it would be an exaggeration to describe them as considerable. Certain quantities of feeding-stuffs have been bought in these countries, though, of course, I am not in a position to give details. It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to purchase feeding-stuffs in the Balkan countries in so far as opportunity offers, and price is not necessarily the deciding factor. As regards the second part of the Question, I am aware that substantial quantities have been bought by Germany. I have, however, seen no reliable evidence to support the suggestion in the third part of the Question.

Miss Wilkinson: Would the Minister mind reading the trade papers on this matter, as they deal with all those points and with the evidence?

Mr. Cross: In that case the trade papers must be considerably in error, because I have a certain amount of information on this subject on which I can place great reliance.

Miss Wilkinson: With regard to Scandinavia?

Mr. Cross: Certainly.

RUMANIAN OIL.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he is aware that the Rumanian petrol company, Foraky Roumaneasca, Limited, has been sold to a German group; and what steps were taken to prevent this and to bring it under British influence?

Mr. Cross: The purchase of Foraky Roumaneasca, Limited, was carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, but it was decided that the potential value of the property did not justify the purchase price which was being asked. In addition, the small production of which this company is capable would not increase materially the amount of Rumanian oil under German control and would still leave Germany substantially short of the amount which she is entitled to purchase under the German-Rumanian agreement.

Mr. Mander: Am I to understand that this was one of the occasions when the Treasure refused to grant the request of the Minister of Economic Warfare?

Mr. Cross: No, Sir. This is not a case in which I wished to approach the Treasury to make any grant.

Mr. Mander: Because you knew it was useless?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

BLACK-OUT REGULATIONS.

Mr. Cary: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will state briefly the military recommendations which are assumed to make the black-out regulations an essential part of our defences?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): The purpose of the black-out is to render air navigation, the location of targets and accurate bomb-aiming more difficult, and practical experience has shown that it does in fact have these effects.

Mr. Cary: Is it not a fact that in the Sylt raid the fires started by the first bombers guided other bombers to their targets, thus proving the German black-out to be quite useless?

Sir K. Wood: Obviously, I cannot comment on that.

Sir H. Williams: Can the Minister give any place in this country where the black-out has proved effective?

Sir K. Wood: That is another matter.

TUBERCULOSIS (X-RAY EXAMINATION).

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the Admiralty's decision to examine naval personnel by X-ray to ascertain whether there are any tubercular tendencies, he will adopt a similar policy for the Air Force personnel?

Sir K. Wood: This question is now under consideration.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if the Navy find it a good policy, it may also be a good policy for the Air Force?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, I will bear that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (AGRICULTURE, WESTERN ISLES).

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tractors he has sent, or is having sent, for free or cheap use among the crofters in the Western Isles, to assist them with spring land work and the subsidised ploughing-in schemes, in view of the absence on active service of large numbers of young crofters and other land workers?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): A tractor outfit is being sent to Lewis to give assistance in ploughing at reasonable charges under the agricultural machinery scheme run by the District Agricultural Executive Committees in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

Mr. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will approach the Naval and Army authorities to secure the release from service of blacksmiths from the Western Isles, as much inconvenience is being caused by the absence of these men who are essential to local agriculture?

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member is aware of the arrangements made with the War Office for the release on agricultural grounds of a limited number of men in the Army whose return is considered essential in the national interest. Applications for the release of blacksmiths whether from the Western Isles or elsewhere in Scotland, are considered on their relative merits. As I informed him on 5th March, consultations are now taking place with the Service Departments with a view to meeting if possible the special difficulties of the Western Isles.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that very soon the spring work ought to be under way, but that, as the negotiations with the War Office have been going on for a long time without any satisfactory conclusion, it seems possible that no spring work will be done at all this year?

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member will remember the great importance of these men to the Services as well. This is a difficult question, which has to be carefully considered.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that the contribution which the islands are making in men is relatively higher than that made by any other part of the British Empire, is it not fair to these people to ensure that their livelihood will be protected by allowing them to do the spring work and to maintain the agricultural output?

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member's Question relates to men in the Royal Navy as well as to men in the Army. These men are mostly Reservists, and are of very great importance to the Navy.

Mr. Kirkwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House anything definite that his Department has done to ease the situation that is behind these two Questions about the Western Isles?

Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir, but not, I am afraid, within the compass of Question and Answer. A great deal has been done to help the labour situation, where it has been possible to do so, by arrangement with the Service authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL REPORT (OVERSEA DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information, whether the evidence given

before the Select Committee on Publications and Debates by Mr. Ivison Macadam, assistant director-general, Ministry of Information, to the effect that a wider distribution of the Official Report for overseas would assist our enemies, represents the official view of the Ministry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Sir Edward Grigg): The words used by Mr. Macadam in his evidence before the Select Committee were:
so far as neutral countries are concerned, there is the danger that those who are seeking to attack the British democratic system will be assisted by this wider distribution of Hansard to find particular statements and criticisms made in the course of debate on which they could make their case.
This represents the official view of the Ministry.

Mr. Mander: But does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that an example of the free functioning of democracy in war-time would be the best possible propaganda we could send throughout the world? Is it not a fact, as the Official Report already circulates on the Continent and gets into the enemy's hands, that there is no point whatever in trying to stop it?

Sir E. Grigg: There has been much which has been said on both sides, but I think the hon. Member will agree that it is not desirable to add to the difficulty which Members of this House feel in carrying out the duty of criticism.

Mr. Mander: Does the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that Debates in this House add to our difficulties in war-time?

Sir E. Grigg: I did not suggest anything of the kind. What I suggested was that in Debates Members themselves have said that they feel difficulties sometimes in making criticism in war-time; and we do not want to add to those difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (BANKING FIRMS).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the Banco Aleman Antioquieno is, as its name indicates, a German-controlled bank; and why, in spite of this fact, the bank is not on the black list;
(2) why it has taken about six months to decide to place the Deutsch Asiatesche Bank on the black list, considering that the bank's name clearly indicates German ownership?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) on 22nd February.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AND FRENCH COLONIAL MINISTERS (DISCUSSIONS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement regarding the nature of his discussions with the French Colonial Minister; and what conclusions were reached?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As the reply is inevitably a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the reply:

Yes, Sir. The hon. Member has no doubt seen the communiquéwhich was issued to the Press at the conclusion of the discussions which M. Georges Mandel and I held recently in Paris. In this statement I would propose simply to amplify that announcement in certain respects. In various parts of the world the British and French Colonial Empires are neighbours, and it is natural that the two Governments have many problems in common and much to learn from each others' experience in the various departments of colonial administration. Contact and interchange of views between neighbouring administrations has sometimes taken place in the past; for instance, Governors and other officers of British West African Colonies have visited neighbouring French territories on their way to and from the posts. There has also been some contact between the British and French Colonial Offices. A senior officer of the Colonial Office visited the Colonial Ministry in Paris last year for an exchange of views, and a senior officer of the French Ministry paid two or three visits to the Colonial Office. I myself had a first informal discussion with M. Mandel on the possibilities of co-operation last June.

Our recent discussions in Paris were to place upon a more regular and permanent footing a contact which had been in the past only intermittent. The first and most important result of our discussions was the decision to establish regular machinery for liaison both between the Colonial Ministries in the two capitals and between the administrations in the neighbouring French and British Colonies. The various departmental and specialist officers in the Colonial Office will maintain a regular communication with their opposite numbers in Paris on matters of common concern, and they will meet from time to time to confer on their mutual problems. In addition, I propose to appoint an officer whose special duty it will be to organise and co-ordinate this work of liaison. Though his work will lie primarily in London, he will pay visits to the Colonial Ministry in Paris as often as circumstances require this.

I understand that similar organisations for liaison will be established in the French Colonial Ministry. As was indicated in the Press communiqué, this liaison will be extended to the Colonies themselves, where there will be a regular contact between administrative and technical officers as well as Governors. Such a liaison with the French Colonial Empire will be of great value in times of peace. It is certainly no less valuable between Allies engaged in war. Already since the outbreak of war various problems entailing close co-operation between their respective Colonial authorities have arisen, and joint study of these is most important. For example, during the last six months both Colonial Offices have been working on programmes of production and marketing of essential foodstuffs and raw materials from their own territories. There will shortly be a joint meeting of experts to perfect the co-ordination of these two programmes, the object being that the Allies should make the fullest possible use of their joint Colonial resources.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES (BEEF, CLYDEBANK).

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that there has recently been a shortage of beef in the Clydebank area; what steps he is taking to ensure that the workers in the


heavy industries of this district who are performing work of national importance are adequately supplied with beef; and whether he will give an assurance that Scottish beef will not be sent to England until all Scottish needs have been supplied?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that the total supplies of beef are now less than in normal times because of the demands of our Fighting Services and those of France. I am advised that, making allowance for this shortage, butchers in the Clydebank have, in general, been able to meet adequately the requirements of their consumers. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, I am unable to give the suggested assurance. The total supplies of beef in the United Kingdom as a whole must be allocated so as to ensure an equitable distribution amongst all localities in relation to their special needs.

Mr. Kirkwood: Surely it is as important to keep men behind the front fed as it is to feed the soldiers? Is it not as essential that the Clyde workers as well as the soldiers should have beef?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Clyde workers are receiving the same proportion of beef as workers in any other industrial areas in the United Kingdom.

Sir T. Moore: If we send Scots to England to run England, ought we not to send Scottish beef?

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware of the fact that, as stated in this Question, they are not getting the supply and that there are other parts better supplied than Clydebank, which is causing a great deal of discontent?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the Clydebank areas the butchers requisition of first-quality beef was met by 63 per cent. and by over 100 per cent. for first quality mutton. I do not think those figures compare unfavourably with those for other industrial areas.

Mr. Thorne: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the hon. Member wants the English people to get some of the Scots beef?

Mr. Kirkwood: Because England gets plenty of Scotsmen. England gets everything, and we have to keep something. We are simply off the map.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (COKE).

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary for Mines why the contract for the supply of coke for the Longbenton balloon barrage should be allocated to a Birmingham agent supplying through the Dinnington Main Coal Company of Yorkshire when coke is available in the area from local suppliers?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am making inquiries of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air about this matter and will communicate with the hon. Lady as soon as possible.

Miss Ward: Will the Secretary for Mines bear in mind that since the last announcement was made in the House, I myself have seen on the railway sidings coke in the trucks? Businessmen would like to know as quickly as possible—and there is no criticism—the reason. Can he give a straight answer?

Mr. Lloyd: The last inquiry was about coal, and this is about coke.

Miss Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman continue the inquiries in the case of coal?

Mr. Lloyd: I told the hon. Lady that if she would furnish me with further particulars, I would go into it, but I have not had the particulars from her.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MAJOR REID-KELLETT.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Major Alan Reid-Kellett, D.S.O., M.C., employed as liaison officer in connection with the construction of Militia camps at Devizes and subsequently as garrison engineer at Larkhill in a civilian capacity was, subsequent to his engagement in the latter work, dismissed from his job on account of reports which he had made concerning the extravagance, waste and irregularities going on in the construction of camps at Devizes; and whether he will take immediate steps to see that Major


Reid-Kellett is reinstated in his employment at Larkhill or re-engaged in some other suitable work?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): My right hon. Friend has satisfied himself that he would not be justified in ordering the re-engagement of Major Reid-Kellett.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this man was employed as a civilian, and not as a soldier, and that he was dismissed from his second job on account of the action taken in the first job? Does he think that should take place without any proper inquiry? The man is now penniless in spite of distinguished service in the last war.

Sir V. Warrender: All these considerations have been taken into account by my right hon. Friend, and I do not think I can add anything to what I have said.

Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that there has not been a proper inquiry into the facts of the case?

Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: There has not been.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (MILITARY OCCUPATION).

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he is taking upon the representations made to him as to the serious and often unnecessary interference with the food production campaign of the Government caused by the undefined military occupation of agricultural land in areas such as those of Marlborough and Swindon; and whether he will direct these military authorities to confer with the Wiltshire Agricultural War Executive Committee and the Wiltshire National Farmers' Union so as to ensure that Army manoeuvres and other military acitivities make the least possible disturbance of agricultural operations?

Sir V. Warrender: Commands have been instructed that, in taking land for training, interference with agricultural land must be limited to the minimum necessary, and that in case of any doubt or objection by the occupier the matter should be referred to the local land commissioner of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Sir P. Hurd: Does my hon. Friend not realise that this is a most unsatisfactory position and that this interference

with the Government food campaign should not take place unless there has been prior consultation with the war agricultural executive committees and the National Farmers' Union, otherwise the Government's food campaign will break down?

Sir V. Warrender: We are keeping in close touch with the Minister of Agriculture, and, so far as possible, with the local bodies. We are quite aware of the difficulties.

Sir P. Hurd: The fact I have brought to the attention of the War Office was that this interference is still going on and that no such prior consultation takes place.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister see that the Agricultural Workers' Union also is consulted?

TUBERCULOSIS (X-RAY EXAMINATION).

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Admiralty's decision to examine naval personnel by X-ray to ascertain freedom from tubercular tendencies, he will adopt the same policy for the Army?

Sir V. Warrender: Consideration is being given to this matter, but, in the case of the Army, serious difficulties are involved.

Miss Ward: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind in future that it is a very important thing to have these tests taken?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Nazi Government propaganda organ "Volkebund," published in English at Geneva, is still being allowed into this country; and what further steps he proposes to take to carry out his expressed policy of preventing the entrance of this journal into this country?

Sir V. Warrender: This matter is being carefully watched, and further steps will be taken, if found necessary.

Mr. Parker: Is the hon. Member aware that I put a Question down on this subject on 30th November last and that since


that date the editor of this paper has sent me personally a copy every month? Does he not think that that shows contempt for our censorship and that it is an absolute cheek?

Sir V. Warrender: We will take further steps to see that the hon. Member does not get his copies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (JEWS AND ARABS, ENLISTMENT).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of Jews and Arabs, respectively, included in the Palestinian unit which recently joined the British Expeditionary Force in France?

Sir V. Warrender: The numbers are—Jews, 430; Arabs, 230.

Mr. Mander: May we take it that this sets out the relative standard of loyalty of the two?

Hon. Members: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether the commerce of any country receives free passage through the Suez Canal?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): All shipping using the Suez Canal is subject to the payment of transit dues, except for certain categories of ships belonging to the Egyptian Government, of which a list is supplied to the Suez Canal Company annually. Ships on this list of less than 300 tons net burden are wholly exempt from dues, and those of more than 300 tons burden are exempt up to an annual total of 3,500 tons.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not also a fact that British and French ships pay exactly the same transit dues as those of any other country, including Italy?

Mr. Butler: There is a schedule of dues to which international shipping has to conform.

Mr. Henderson: Is it a fact that there is no differentiation between British and French ships and the shipping of any other country?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (RETIRED OFFICERS' PENSIONS).

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that many retired officers who have been called up feel a strong sense of injustice because of the disproportionate size of the deductions now made from their pay towards pensions which they have commuted; and whether he will look into this matter?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Austin Hudson): I am not aware of any general feeling of injustice in the matter to which the hon. Member refers. The deductions, which are required by the Pensions Commutation Acts, are always equal to the amount of the retired pay commuted.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY EXPLOSION, MOSSFIELD, STAFFS.

Mr. MacLaren (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement as to the explosion which occurred at Mossfield Colliery last night?

Mr. Lloyd: I regret to have to inform the House that an explosion occurred in the early hours of this morning at Mossfield Colliery, North Staffordshire, in which eight persons were killed and four or more injured. The bodies of the dead have been recovered, and operations are now proceeding at all speed to seal off the affected area in order to prevent any danger of further explosion. When these have been completed inquiries as to the cause of the explosion will be commenced by His Majesty's inspector. The House will wish me to express their deep sympathy with the families and friends of these miners who have lost their lives in service.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am sorry to intervene, but I have done it time and time again with every Secretary for Mines, in order to ask whether the Minister is satisfied that everything is being done that can be done by science and engineering to avoid the terrible disasters that are always happening in the mines of our country?

Mr. Lloyd: The House will be aware that great efforts are constantly being made in this matter, and we must all regret that we cannot make more progress than has at present been achieved.

Mr. Tinker: When the inquiry takes place, will the hon. Gentleman cause attention to be given to the question of relaxation during war time, because we have reason to believe that there is too much relaxation of rules and regulations in the mines?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. This is an important matter, and we are always in the closest touch with the Miners' Federation with regard to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: With your permission, Sir, and the leave of the House, I desire to make a personal statement with regard to the Private Notice Question which I put to the Minister of Supply yesterday. The House will remember that I was placed in a rather difficult position—possibly the Minister was as well—by the statement of the Minister that a letter had been sent to me bearing on the matter; and as the reply to the Question referred to the letter I was in a difficulty because the letter had not been received by me. The Minister said:
I am sorry if the letter addressed to the right hon. Gentleman by me and handed in in the precincts of the House yesterday has not yet reached him, but there will be an opportunity of dealing with matters in that letter otherwise than by a private notice Question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1940; col. 1978, Vol. 358.]
I gave notice of the Private Notice Question during the morning of the preceding day, as I wanted to give the Minister every possible time to prepare his reply. The letter which the Minister stated, and stated rightly as far as I understand, was handed in in the precincts of the House did not actually reach me until yesterday afternoon. I was in the House all Tuesday, but there was evidently some fault in the delivery arrangements. The letter was posted, catching the 11·30 post at night. I have shown the envelope to the Minister. Consequently, the letter was not in my possession at the time the Question was answered yesterday afternoon. I thought it right to make that explanation because frankly I was in a position of considerable difficulty in dealing with the matters referred to in the letter as I had not received the letter.
I would only refer to one other matter, and that is that the Minister said, in the

course of his statement, that he would desire that I should produce the witnesses who gave me the information with regard to Captain Ullman. The Minister knows that on 26th February, when I gave him the information about Captain Ullman and the visiting card, I told him that the people who gave me the information in this matter, as, indeed, is often the case, had told me that they could not be brought into the matter for economic reasons and because of, probably, victimisation in one way or another. That is a common experience in such cases, and I had to respect the conditions under which the information was given to me. I will, of course, make further inquiries and see my informants again. If it is possible for them to change their minds, nobody will be more pleased than I shall. I am sure the House will understand that Members are often given information which they have every reason to believe is bona fide, but for economic reasons and because of possible victimisation the informants cannot possibly reveal themselves or permit themselves to be revealed. The Minister sent me a somewhat long letter which I will consider and study, and I will reply in due course or pursue the matter in connection with the discussion on the Defence Regulations, or otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without amendment.

COLONIAL POLICY.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

12.1 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I want to raise, on behalf of the party on this side of the House, the question of the West Indies Royal Commission Report and the recommendations arising there from. The recommendations of the Royal Commission and the statement of Colonial policy published in the White Paper are among the most important Colonial documents of recent times. There will, I think, in each case be further opportunities for discussing the proposals of the Royal Commission and the Secretary of State in the White Paper, but it would be unreasonable that the House should disperse for the vacation without giving some consideration to the important proposals which have been made to the Government by the Royal Commission. We on this side would like to pay tribute to the excellent work of the Royal Commission and the constructive spirit which they have shown in the recommendations which they have submitted.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1940
2 Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Act, 1940.
3. Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940.
4. Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940.
5. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Canterbury) Act, 1940.
6. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ilkley) Act, 1940.

COLONIAL POLICY.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

12.14 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I was remarking that we all recognised the quality of the work which was done by the Royal Commission, and that it was a pity that so important and so searching a piece of work will not see the light of day. Though some inquiries do a certain amount of whitewashing, in this case the report was eagerly awaited, and there was a considerable feeling everywhere that the facts should be made known to the British public as well as to the Colonial peoples concerned. In paying tribute to the work done by the Commission, I should like to express from this side of the House our very deep regret at the passing of Mr. Morgan Jones during this strenuous work. He had engaged himself heart and soul in the inquiry, and from the evidence available it is clear that his work was of great importance.
The appointment of the Royal Commission followed a great public demand that something should be done to remove the causes of unrest and misery in this corner of the British Empire. It was obvious from the reports which were coming to hand that there had been an economic breakdown, that social conditions were extremely bad, that there was, in most of the Islands, considerable labour unrest and also that there was a strong demand for political means of expression among these people. The public were anxious to know what the facts were and how the distressing problems revealed could be adequately tackled. Since the appointment of the Royal Commission, those Members of this House who are interested in West Indian problems have shown considerable restraint in questioning the Secretary of State. The West Indian people have, in many cases, put on one side their agitation, because they hoped that with the knowledge of the report, substantial redress and improvements would result.
While we have been waiting for the report of the Royal Commission certain important documents have been issued. We now know the state of nutrition among the peoples of the West Indies. We have had a useful survey by Major Orde-Browne of labour conditions in the West Indies, and the Secretary of State has published an important Paper setting out the limits of the franchise and certain constitutional difficulties which exist in the colonies. But the decision not to publish the Royal Commission's report


is one against which we on this side of the House, at any rate, must enter a vigorous protest.
It may be urged that this country is at war, and that it is undesirable to publish matters which might give further material for use as propaganda by the enemy. I would, however, point out that, already, many of the essential facts in regard to economic and social conditions in the West Indies are known, not merely to ourselves but also to the Germans. Certain evidence given at the Royal Commission has been printed and there has been a series of reports, some emanating from this country and some published by the local administrations, setting out most distressing social and economic facts about these colonies.
It seems, therefore, that the policy of "hush hush" serves no useful purpose whatever when the facts are already known about the conditions and the state of the administration in these Colonies. In point of fact, the non-publication of the report has only made things look very much worse. The value of the report, had it been published, would have lain in the fact that it is a survey of economic and social facts; that, in it, the various problems of these territories have been treated as a whole and have been inter-related, so as to enable one to see how, under any comprehensive plan, the job should be done. By the publication of the recommendations we are told what the remedies are to be, but in testing the value of those remedies, we are left without any diagnosis of the disease. We do not know whether the recommendations are adequate to deal with the evils which have been discovered and we are placed in a great difficulty this morning in discussing recommendations without the assistance of the background of this comprehensive survey.
A further reason why we must protest is that publicity is essentially the colonial peoples' bulwark. It is vitally important, if the colonial peoples are to be defended, that there should be the utmost publicity, not only as to administration, but as to economic and social facts. To deprive them of that weapon is a very sorry thing indeed. We are a democratic people and it seems to me we ought not to shirk unpalatable facts. Democracy cannot work if it is prepared to hide the truth

and run away from criticism. It has a definite responsibility and if it is to discharge that responsibility, it must be in possession of proper information on which to form a judgment. Therefore, we on this side contend that the non-publication of this report is inconsistent with democratic practice. Let me point out that, already, the German announcer has used the opportunity of non-publication for a ribald jest at the expense of this country and the German Press has already been engaged in writing typical declamatory nonsense about British hypocrisy. I do not understand why we should be put into the position of playing the game of the enemy. For those reasons, we enter our strong protest against non-publication.
The Commissioners however, in spite of the fact that the country is at war recommended very strongly that their proposals should be considered and proceeded with immediately and the Government have tried to console us by declaring that they will carry out the pledge, given when the Royal Commission was appointed, that they would act without delay on its findings. We welcome then this important declaration that the matters in the report will be dealt with promptly by the Colonial Secretary. The Government have accepted, in principle, the Commission's main recommendations. They are to see that there is created a special organisation under a Controller with an expert staff to develop social and economic services throughout the West Indies. Further, it is announced that they will appoint an inspector-general of agriculture to develop—what is fundamentally important—the economic organisation of agriculture in those territories. The Government have also promised £1,000,000 a year, plus administrative costs, and have indicated that they will act, as early as possible, in the spirit of the recommendations as a whole. Meantime they are consulting the colonial administrations and will issue a White Paper later, showing what they propose to do.
We admit that, as a piece of consolation perhaps, these statements of policy are of great importance but before proceeding to study in detail the recommendations of the Commission, I wish to refer briefly to the White Paper on the larger problem of Colonial policy. Several paragraphs in that White Paper have an


immediate bearing on the problem which is before us this morning. For instance, we welcome very much the intended provision of £5,000,000 per year as a grant-in-aid to cover not only schemes of capital expenditure in the Colonies but also current expenditure on social services, interest charges, grants-in-aid and matters like housing, education, public health provision and other services. Of that sum, £1,000,000 will be available for the West Indies for all those purposes, including the founding of labour departments, slum clearance schemes, and land settlement, though not the cost of the purchase of land.
The Royal Commission asked that there should be a period of 20 years for constructive planning. They regarded 20 years as indispensable for the fruition of their schemes. There has been much neglect. Therefore they argued that in a brief period little could be done. It was vitally important for social and economic development that the controller when he was appointed, should be able to look ahead for a long period and to plan accordingly. Therefore a period of 20 years for the grant of £1,000,000 per year was of very great importance to them. It is clear that when the Secretary of State informed the Chairman of the Royal Commission that the report could not be published, he said that the Government accepted forthwith
those of your major recommendations which deal with the provision of an annual sum for social welfare and development and the establishment of a special organisation, independent of the West Indian Colonial Governments, to administer this fund.
So that, virtually, the Government accepted the principle of a 20-year period.
If we turn to the proposals of the White Paper, we see that the Government visualise a period of only 10 years. I would like to know whether there is any explanation of that ambiguity; whether it is definitely determined that the pledge given by the Colonial Secretary in respect of 20 years will be observed. In any case, so far as these benches are concerned, we shall certainly hold whatever Government may be in office to the 20-year period, because it is a definite liability and a pledge into which the present Government have entered.
There are several questions which I would like to put to the Minister before I proceed much further with the study of

the report. First of all, I would ask whether any part of the £500,000 mentioned in the White Paper is likely to be made available to the West Indies in respect of research on West Indian problems. The second question is, What are the immediate schemes which the Colonial Secretary proposes to put in hand for the expenditure of the £350,000 mentioned in the White Paper? The third question is, How soon is it proposed to set up the office of controller, with his expert staff? Will it function in London, or will it have its base in the West Indies? Further, the White Paper contemplates the setting up of a Colonial Development and Welfare Advisory Committee. I believe it is proposed that this committee should proceed with this work at an early date. Will that committee, in concerning itself with the larger Colonial problems, deal also with the problems of the West Indies? If so, what will be the relation of that committee to the controller, whom it is proposed to set up under the Royal Commission's recommendation?
Then there is the further point which emerges, and to which I would like an answer, regarding the relationship of the committee to the Standing Parliamentary Committee which is to consider Colonial affairs in conjunction with representatives from the Colonies. I assume that, if the Government have accepted in spirit the recommendations of the Royal Commission, they have also accepted those recommendations for the setting up of a Standing Parliamentary Committee. I would like to know whether further progress is likely to be made during the period of the war in regard to this Parliamentary Committee. At the same time, the carrying through of the recommendations of the Royal Commission will involve some degree of internal reconstruction of the Colonial Office itself. From these benches we have for a long time urged that there should be a labour advisory committee and a labour department in the Colonial Office. The Royal Commission recommend that such committee and department should be established. That demand, I believe, has the wholehearted support of the British Trades Union Congress. I therefore ask whether it is the intention of the Government to reorganise inside the Colonial Office and to make available expert


labour advice for the consideration of Colonial labour problems and of West Indian problems in particular?
When we turn to the recommendations of the Commission themselves, we are struck with the severity of the indictment against Colonial administration in this part of the Empire. One can plainly read between the lines of the recommendations. It is clear that the social and economic conditions are deplorable and that this is in part due to past indifference and neglect. It is clear that there is a festering mass of unemployment, a great surplus of unemployed population, wretched housing conditions, inadequate medical services, infinite squalor, illegitimacy and destitution. It is true, too, that the Colonies have been the prey of outside economic forces as well as of inside economic neglect. It is obvious that there has been no co-ordination of economic and social policy, that labour problems have been frequent and bitter, that communication between the islands is poor, that education is inadequate and that the political control of the islands is largely in the hands of a very small section of the respective communities. I submit that this is a pretty bad indictment which can be plainly read in the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
While it is said that the West Indians have been extremely loyal in the present crisis and that they have declared great readiness for sacrifices in order that British arms shall triumph in this war, nevertheless, there are indications that the bad conditions set out in the report have, in some respects, been deteriorating since. Already news has come from the West Indies of the imposition of restrictions on certain important economic work; certain social services are in danger of being whittled down. In one group of islands educational schemes are being held up and Colonial development plans are being abandoned. There are signs in British Guiana and British Honduras of economic planning being abandoned of works being slowed down, and in Jamaica of medical services being cut. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will see that the undertaking which he gave at the beginning of the war will be loyally observed in the respective territories of the West Indies—an undertaking which

expressed the hope, at any rate, that so far as the social services and economic development plans of these Colonies are concerned there should be no restriction or cutting of expenditure for the maintenance of these things at their present standard.
So far as the recommendations go, we on this side of the House welcome them because of the practical and constructive contribution they make to this problem. Fundamental, of course, is the question of economic reconstruction. The economic deterioration has resulted from a number of factors during the past decade or two, and it was necessary that there should be this examination of the economic forces operating in these islands before any real constructive planning could take place. Among the important economic proposals to which I want to draw attention is the question of sugar preferences. In recent years that question has always been very much to the fore. I do not know the degree to which restrictions on production and quotas have been removed in the war, but I hope that the importance of this part of the Commissioners' recommendations will be appreciated and that although profits have been made where production of sugar is efficient, the industry will be helped; and that any additional assistance given to planters will be proportionately passed on to the labourers whose conditions are deplorable. I hope that the proposal in respect of the establishment of welfare funds will be carried through and money made available for the improvement of the wretched social, housing, and health services.
Again I want to emphasise the importance among the recommendations of those proposals concerned with intensive cultivation, mixed farming and far greater home production of essential foodstuffs. It becomes exceedingly important—in fact, it becomes vital—to the life of these islands that they should be more readily able to support their rapidly growing population. Access to the land and the teaching of intensive cultivation, together with production for home consumption, are vitally important if health is to return to the peoples of these islands. In days gone by there has been far too much specialisation in export crops; there should be a proper balance and new ways adopted so that at least land settlement can be allowed to develop on the basis


of peasant agriculture. The energies of administration should be demonstrated by pushing on with land settlement schemes which have been far too slow in days gone by. To-day we have in the islands the tragedy of a landless, workless people; therefore, it is important that they should have access to the land and that there should be proper training, intensive cultivation and production of home foodstuffs. At the same time, as the Commissioners point out, attention should be given to marketing conditions, and I would like the Colonial Secretary to tell me what is likely to happen now that the Empire Marketing Board has ceased to function as part of the Empire marketing arrangements.
On the subject of economic reconstruction, one should also stress a matter which does not receive great importance among the recommendations, namely, the importance of establishing local industries. Far too much food and far too many goods of primary consumption are purchased from outside these islands, whereas they could be manufactured on the spot. One hopes that the recommendation about the establishment of local industries will be vigorously taken up. Further on economic reconstruction I want to refer to one other point, and that is that in spite of the poverty in these islands there is still a considerable drain of wealth to shareholders of companies in this country. It would be of great benefit to the people of the West Indies if direct taxation could be increased and this flow of wealth out of the islands stemmed back in order to add to social improvement and the economic development of these Colonies. The only Colony which has any mineral wealth is Trinidad. Oil is yielding reasonable profits, and it would be all to the good if some of that money could be retained for the happiness and well-being of the people in Trinidad. In this connection I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary whether he can give us any indication of the extent to which the recommendations of the Commission following the last inquiry in Trinidad, on which a Debate took place in this House, have been implemented during the past year or so.
I will now say a word on the proposals under the section headed "Labour" in the Blue Book. In my view the labour proposals—the suggestions for setting up labour departments, for freeing the trade

unions, for establishing workmen's compensation schemes and for setting up conciliation machinery—are of the utmost importance, and I hope the Government will not hesitate to implement that section of the recommendations concerned with trade union legislation. There is still considerable labour agitation in the Colonies at the present time, particularly because of the increase in the cost of living. There are Colonies where bitterness is characteristic of the relations between employers and workpeople. There is considerable dissatisfaction in British Guiana. I hope that the Secretary of State will insist that the recent trade union legislation in Barbados be amended so as to permit of peaceful picketing by the trade unions in times of industrial dispute. One hopes also that Administrations will take a much more tolerant attitude towards labour troubles. It is not good enough for us to entertain the idea that these industrial disputes arise because of the work of agitators. That was the charge which was made at the time of the Trinidad dispute a few years ago, but every Commission which has sat has made it clear that the causes of the trouble lie in the economic conditions and the social squalor of the people. It is important that we should appreciate that there are, in respect to both industry and agriculture, very deep-seated causes of unrest; and those causes need to be tackled.
I would ask the House to support my plea that something should be done to extend adult education. What is very important for the Colonies is sound and responsible leadership, particularly for the building-up of trade union and labour effort. If these new powers of combination are to be exercised with responsibility, it is important to provide education facilities so that those who emerge from the labour ranks know how to use their new authority and power with discretion, and for the well-being of the people whom they are called upon to represent. Therefore, I hope that there will be definite budgeting by the Administrations for adult education, after the pattern adopted in this country, and that the Colonial Secretary will see that money is forthcoming for the founding of scholarships, so that some of these responsible trade union workers and labour leaders may come to this country to study our conciliation machinery, our trade union methods, the functions of the Ministry of


Labour, and so on. This proposal is in line with the suggestion made by Major Orde-Browne in paragraph 111of his recent report on trade union and labour conditions in the Colonies. I have no time, in spite of their enormous importance, to discuss the recommendations in respect of social legislation and the social development of the people. As I have said, the recommendations make it clear that the social problem is most acute. The subject of nutrition has already received the attention of the special body appointed to examine it. In Barbados, we are told:
there is no reason to doubt that many households live on the borderline of extreme poverty.
In Jamaica, we read that
the nutrition state of a depressing large proportion of the labouring classes is definitely bad.
One could go on giving instance after instance, to show how ill is the social condition of these people. I would urge vigorous action in regard to housing, public health services, education, and so on. I should like to make one reference to the very difficult question of surplus population. That is particularly important in respect to Barbados as well as elsewhere. Here you have a great mass of people with nothing to do, in dire poverty. If there are no immediate outlets for this surplus population, as there used to be, I hope that special consideration will be given to the question of whether some schemes of absorption can be adopted in British Honduras. I would welcome co-operation between His Majesty's Government and the Jewish people in making certain experiments, under adequate safeguards for West Indians in British Guiana.
Finally, there is the very important question of political reform. This matter has now become one of desperate urgency. We so often declare our views in regard to the blessings of democracy; we like to proclaim to the world that we encourage freedom and the democratic spirit, that we further the democratic ideal in all parts of the Empire; but the limits of the franchise in the West Indies to-day are deplorable, and cannot be justified. What is being done now to secure a generous measure—which is long overdue—of political reform? It is vitally important that the needs and

aspirations of the West Indian people should have some political expression. A little while ago the Colonial Secretary published a White Paper setting out the constitutional position in each of the territories. One discovers that in many respects, the people have scarcely any voice in the control of affairs in their own lands. For instance, in Jamaica, which has a population of nearly 1,250,000, only 66,000 people are registered as voters. In Trinidad, with a population of nearly 500,000, there are only 26,000 on the register. Further, the difficulty of securing eligibility to be a representative in the Legislature is very great indeed for the common people in those Colonies. I hope that this deplorable position will be immediately put right. We attach importance to what the Commission say regarding the introduction of the committee system, in older that the elected representatives may gain an insight into the practical details of government. I hope that, as a result of the work of the new Controller, of unifying the medical services and other important services, of extending the communications and wireless services, and of linking up the Leeward and Windward Islands, the Colonies will move towards some system of political federation; I hope the Controller can work out some social and educational policy that will lead towards the same end.
I welcome particularly the proposal of the Commission that there should be launched immediately a campaign to break down colour prejudice. In certain of our Colonies of Africa, that social evil is growing; and I am sure that the Colonial Secretary will apply himself with vigour to the breaking down of any unfortunate distinctions which mar our Colonial social relationships in the West Indies. The proposal about the period during which the Governors and high officials should remain in a Colony as the head of administrations, is also of importance. The very best possible officials ought to be chosen for this work. It ought not to be regarded as a dumping ground at the end of an administrator's life. The work in these Colonies ought to be taken seriously and officials of the best calibre ought to be employed. This past scandal ought to be ended. I hope, moreover, that, when the new machinery is set up under these proposals, the Colonial Office will see that, when it


issues circulars or instructions, or when it proposes legislation, all these things are loyally observed and administered. It has been a grave reflection on the administration of the past that, however excellent the intentions of the Colonial Office, too little regard has been paid to the instructions which have come out.
These recommendations of the Royal Commission seem to us to have very great constructive value. We regret that we have not been privileged to see the report, but I urge that the Colonial Secretary will use this great opportunity and will act quickly and do all that is humanly possible, by financial and every other means, to restore health and prosperity to the distressed peoples of the West Indies.

12.58 p.m.

Sir Walter Smiles: We have listened to a very fair speech from the hon. Member, except that at times I think he painted the colours a bit too dark. I do not know that he gives sufficient credit for what we have already done. One of the last points that he mentioned was colour prejudice. I can remember landing in one of the Colonies and there was a dinner that evening. There were coloured people and Europeans present, and the guest of honour was a coloured lady. As far as I could see, no discrimination at all was made. I can only say that that happened on my first evening in this Colony—I will not mention which it was—and it struck me that, if there was colour prejudice, it was certainly slight and it was not apparent that evening.
Before I start upon the West Indies, seeing that the Secretary of State is on the Front Bench and we very rarely have a chance in war-time of seeing him there, I should like to mention a question which has been exercising me very much for the last month, and that is the growing of flax in Kenya. I have had interviews with an expert from Kenya on flax who is in this country, and I have had some correspondence with my friends in Northern Ireland. The Members for Northern Ireland are unable to be present to-day, but I discussed the matter with them before they left for home, and they gave me full permission to take the matter up. During the last war the planters in Kenya started to grow flax and, there is no doubt, made a very good profit out of

it while the war lasted, getting prices as high as £400 a ton. Immediately the war was over the price was allowed to slide, and it fell to £60, and the people who had put their estates under the crop and invested money in it lost very seriously. I would ask the Secretary of State, when he is encouraging them to grow flax in this war, to give them some guarantee that they will be kept going for a year or two afterwards at least. The advances of science in flax have been very great during the past 20 years. I have here a letter from a large flax spinner in Ireland, dated yesterday. He writes:
Twenty years ago flax was grown in Kenya on a large scale but the slump came and killed the industry before it was fairly launched.
At that time there were two ways of preparing flax, dew-retting and water-retting. I understand that water is too scarce in Kenya for the latter process, but during the last few years machinery has been developed which enables the straw to be scutched, without any retting at all, producing what we call green fibre. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to consider easy advances to these planters to put in that machinery. They would pay it back to him or to the Colonial Development Society, during the next five years or so. And I ask that he will interest himself in the matter and guarantee the people who put their land to flax a secure market for at least two years after the war finishes.
Turning to the West Indies, I do not very often break the Tenth Commandment, but I certainly broke it in the case of the people who were selected to go on the Royal Commission, because, of all places in the world, I think it is one of the most interesting, and it is also one of the places where some of the most good can be done. This report is one of the most interesting Blue Books that have been published. It is of very great interest to us all. One of the most important recommendations is about Income Tax. I put a Question to the Secretary of State last month as to the rate of Income Tax paid in the West Indian Colonies, and there is the most extraordinary difference. In one island, I think Domingo, the rate was practically the same as in the United Kingdom, but in some other islands it was not a tenth part. I agree with the late Lord Leverhulme, who said, "Give me the income, and I am ready to pay


the tax." I think that is the view of most of us, and I think it would also be the view of the people in the West Indies. It is only fair that the Income Tax should be more or less equal in all these West Indian Colonies.
Comparing India with our Colonial Empire, and the West Indies in particular, what struck me in the West Indies was that our officials there grossly overworked. The Colonial civil servant has to work a great deal harder than civil servants I have seen elsewhere. The Governor in Jamaica presides over the Council. He told me he liked to preside over the Council. It gave him an interest and an insight into the way people were thinking. But there is no doubt that, when he has finished in the Council and goes home and has to go through all the files, it must give him a great deal of work. I saw in a paper that the Governor of Jamaica was giving up a large proportion of his pay during the war, and we ought to recognise the generosity of this sacrifice.
Another thing that struck me in Jamaica was the very poor standard of agriculture. A planter pointed out tome places where thousands of tons of the best soil in the island are being swept down from the hills into the sea every year. Whereas the Minister of Agriculture in this country is giving a bonus of £2 an acre for ploughing-up land, the Secretary of State for the Colonies might well consider the proposition of giving £2 an acre to the native producers who are losing their land on the hillsides. If they do not terrace, it is absolutely certain that they are wasting the capital of the island. The rainfall in various parts of Jamaica varies considerably but if the soil and the forests of Jamaica are not preserved there are likely to be very serious troubles in the future.
My opinion, when I came away from these islands, was that the principal problem was an economic one, and I think that the whole trade policy of this country has been largely responsible for it. When you go to Cuba and see along the front in Havana the beautiful marble palaces and the clubs there, and then go along to Kingston, Jamaica, and see how it compares with Havana, one is disposed to think that, although it is under the British flag, it does not compare very

well. When I look at the exports and imports between this country and Cuba, I find that we have been taking very much more from Cuba than we have been taking from Jamaica, and that Cuba has been taking very much less from us and Jamaica very much more. A very strong case is made out for preferential treatment of our West Indian Colonial Empire. They cannot speak for themselves in this House, and we have to do our best to speak for them, and a very grave responsibility rests upon every Member of this House for the state in which the West Indies is at the present time. It is no use looking back and thinking of what has been happening there during the past 30 years, but we have to do something now.
Here is a new thing in this Debate. Generally we hear very eloquent speeches. We may still hear eloquent speeches, but we are now definitely seeing something being done. It is not a question of issuing blue books, which are filed, but money is definitely being spent. There would be more good done in the world if people were not so careful as to who should get the credit, but it is very probable that, as a result of this new action which is being taken in the West Indies, the present Colonial Secretary will go down to history as perhaps one of its greatest benefactors. The previous speaker said that too high profits and too much wealth have been taken out of the West Indies in the past. I am not prepared to disagree with him on that, but I would point out that one very large company has invested over £1,000,000 in Jamaica during the last three years. I do not think that they have had one penny back in dividends of any kind. I am not financially interested in any of the West Indian Islands, but interested only from the Colonial point of view. If we did not encourage these companies to go there, how could we expect any development to take place at all? We do not want to see them take excessive profits out of the West Indies, but so long as we are under the present system it is perfectly legitimate to allow them to take moderate profits. Every credit ought to be given to these people who have put £1,000,000 into Jamaica during the last three years.
When I went out there I asked the Governor to be kind enough to give me introductions to various people, and I


said that I wanted to see the oldest sugar plantation on the island and the newest one. The new factory put down by this company struck me as a most marvellous piece of work. I am not an expert in sugar machinery at all, so that I cannot really appreciate that point of view, but I can appreciate the houses that are being built for the workpeople, and the wells that are being sunk and the various other things that are being done for the workpeople. I can appreciate and understand all that. There is no doubt that the housing accommodation on the very old sugar estates in Jamaica is very bad indeed, and I put it down as being entirely due to the price of sugar during the past few years. It is up to this House of Commons to look after these people and enable them to get a fair but not an excessive price for sugar, so that they can in return look after their own labour forces.
There is another question. The Governors of these Colonies are moved too often. In India you generally keep the Indian civil servants in their own provinces. You do not move them all over India. A man in Bombay is not moved to Madras, except when he comes to the very highest post of all, the governorship. Where a Governor is a success and is doing good work it is wise to keep him there instead of moving him on to somewhere else. The trouble is that there are certain plums in the Colonial Service in the way of salary and position which a man who is doing good work in the Colonial Service naturally expects to obtain at the end of his time. Ceylon, Singapore, and possibly Hong Kong, are looked upon as the three plums. I suggest that it would be worth while subsidising some of the other Colonies from this country, so that a good man who really understood West Indian conditions would not at the end of his service be moved away to Singapore, Hong Kong or Ceylon. I believe that it would encourage him to take more interest in the islands of which he was Governor at the moment.
It was a very great day for the West Indian Colonies when the Government decided to implement this report at once with the offer of money, and I am very glad that they have done this. With regard to the labour trouble, I met some of the trade union leaders. I have

nothing to say against them, and I do not think that anybody has, but we want to see the trade unions put upon a proper legal footing so that everybody may receive fair play. One of the things I was asked to do when I came home from Jamaica was to see the Secretary of State for the Colonies about the appointment of a labour adviser to go out there. At that time I was told that there was not such an adviser available, but I am very glad to say that two or three months afterwards a labour adviser was appointed and sent out there, and, from what I hear, he is doing good work. We have to thank the Government for having implemented the report of the West Indian Royal Commission.

1.14 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), who initiated this Debate, spoke about what German propagandists had to say about the conditions in our Colonial Empire. I do not think it comes very well from those who believe in the superiority of one race to criticise the administration of another Empire for failing to consider sufficiently the welfare of the local inhabitants. But in any case that is not the main basis on which German propagandists make their claim for a Colonial Empire. I think Dr. Goebbels stated recently that the Germans were entitled to a share in the vast riches of the Colonial areas. One thing is clear from the reports from the different parts of the Colonial Empire, including the West Indian report which has just come out, and that is if the Governments of those territories give proper consideration to the welfare of their inhabitants, there are no vast riches for the taxpayers of the home country. The striking thing about these reports is that they all set out claims for immense sums which the British taxpayer has to find for welfare and capital development of various kinds. I find that the total sums required to be spent in the Colonial Empire amount to £90,000,000 or more spread over the next 10 or 20 years. Undoubtedly there are even larger sums which could be spent in other parts of the Empire and which, perhaps, should be spent, and I think that does suggest that the Colonial Empire is not a gold mine, but a liability, providing always that the welfare of the inhabitants is considered and that the


social services are maintained and developed in those countries.
But if we are to spend these large sums—and I am sure that Members in all parts of the House wholeheartdly welcome the decision of the Government to carry out the main recommendations of the West Indies report—the question of the level of direct taxation in the West Indies must be thoroughly dealt with. There is no reason why the Colonial Income Taxpayer should get off with a very light Income Tax when the British taxpayer has to find a large sum to carry out work, some of which could have been done had the taxpayer in the West Indies been paying the same rates of taxes, and other direct taxes, as have been paid for some time in this country. If we are to provide the services those who draw their income from the Colonial Empire must bear their full and equal share of the necessary development.
In the recommendations of the West Indies report it is suggested that the basic industry—the sugar industry—is suffering at the present time from restriction of output due to the action of the International Sugar Commission, and it recommends that the quota from the West Indies should be increased by about 20 per cent. One of the subsidies recommended is £1,500,000, of which about two-thirds will go to the West Indies. I do hope that some day we may get a co-ordinated policy on this question, because we have been for some time in this country subsidising the British sugar industry to the tune of several million pounds a year. We are now asked in the interests of the West Indies themselves to increase their output of sugar and to spend about £1,000,000 a year on it. Moreover, it is suggested—and I think this is an additional reason why one wishes that the whole of the report could have been published—that the production of sugar in the West Indies is probably the root cause of many of their difficulties at the moment.
I should have liked to know more about what the Commission thought about that. If that is the case and this money is to be granted to the West Indies, and some of the other subsidies are necessary because of the restriction of West Indies sugar, it means that we have been subsidising British sugar for many years at a considerable and uneconomic cost

and are now asked to subsidise the West Indian sugar industry and pay very large sums for development, welfare and other social services which the West Indies could not find because we are subsidising the British sugar industry. This is really a rather fantastic position, and I hope the Minister will give us the benefit of some further clarification on that basic economic position.
I do not want to go into any detail of the recommendations of the West Indies report. We all want the proposals which, so far as one can see from the recommendations themselves, amount to no more than bringing up the standards of social legislation to that which obtains in this country, or, at any rate, nearer to our standards. We regret that this matter has been so long neglected, but we congratulate the Minister now on making this determined effort to meet abuses and on starting on it during the war. It will, I think, form one of the main internal peace aims of this country when the war is over.
I would like to draw attention to the recommendation which was referred to by the last speaker with regard to the colour question in the West Indies. I am sure it is true that colour prejudice in the West Indies has not developed as it has in some other parts of the Empire. We hope it will never develop. I would like to draw the attention of the House to this recommendation of the Commission:
The active assistance of persons of all parties to upset this practice should be enlisted in an organised attempt to prevent any further extension of the colour prejudice.
I hope the Minister will develop what he thinks can be done under that recommendation. We hear of the introduction of the colour prejudice into the West Indies from other parts of the Empire, and I hope it will be combated with such energy as this recommendation suggests. Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the new policy which is being developed in France in connection with the French Government? I assume that this will not greatly affect the West Indies, but it may have repercussions there, and if he can tell us a little more of what is proposed, we shall be interested to hear how this new and welcome co-operation with the French Colonial Empire is to be carried out.

1.27 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) in telling the Colonial Secretary exactly what he should do in detail and how he is to do it. I should like to refer to one question which he only touched upon incidentally in the last part of his speech, but which is really the greatest question—it is the terrific question of population. While we may have remedial measures in other directions, that is a problem which is not confined to Barbados and Jamaica; it confronts us in other parts of the world; it has the irresistible movement of a glacier and presents one of our most anxious problems. The hon. Member for Blackburn(Sir W. Smiles) spoke of the marble palaces of Havana. I am not so much interested in the marble palaces of Havana or in the bullet holes in the backs of houses from recurrent revolutions, as I am in the homes of the working classes of Jamaica and Barbados. I should like to touch upon a question which has so far not been indicated in the Debate and which has not been disclosed as having been dealt with in the report of the Royal Commission.
Let me say at once that I welcome as entirely wise and prudent the decision of the Government not to publish the report; but to issue the essential recommendations. I welcome the prompt decision to implement, although at a heavy cost to the taxpayer which we shall cheerfully bear, the main recommendations of the Commission. There is one point I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to consider, and it is this: Why is it that conditions in this part of the Empire so developed that a Royal Commission was necessary and that these drastic steps should now have to be taken? I lived for many years in the west country, with its close associations with the West Indies. I can still remember the sugar ships coming in from the West Indies until their industry was strangled by the bounty-fed sugar of the Continent and Mr. Gladstone advised us to turn from sugar to jam. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary has not lived along enough to remember the advent of one of the greatest men of our times, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, to the Colonial Office. Everybody said that for a man of his standing it was madness to accept
an office into which various Governments had put the least attractive of their candidates for office. But within a year of accepting office Mr. Joseph Chamberlain electrified every part of our Colonial Empire from the West Indies to Fiji, from Cyprus to Western Africa, and breathed new life into the dry bones. That is a task as well as an inspiration which I am certain my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary accepts.
The fact is that between the date when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain laid down his office and that when the right hon. Gentleman accepted it a period of stagnation set in, paralysing so many parts of our Colonial Empire and so many branches of the Colonial Office. It is because of that stagnation we have to sit here and consider the report of a Royal Commission and its recommendations and the burdens which it means for us. The Colonial Secretary in putting these proposals before the House has a much less difficult task than he will have to face in so reorganising the system of Colonial administration and the Colonial Office that these periods of stagnation do not recur. With the sanction of the Treasury and this House he is now able to distribute these large sums of money; but he will not find it so easy a task when he sits down to deal with the form of administration which has made the expenditure of this money and these special efforts absolutely imperative. He will require all the support we can give him in cutting away the deadwood of Colonial administration and vivifying it on the constructional side, so that this House may never again have to direct such special attention to special measures.
A matter which is of first importance is the overhead costs of administration, not only in the West Indies but in other parts of our Colonial Empire, and my right hon. Friend will have to consider at an early date the federation of the West Indies and the appointment at the head of that Federation of a Federal Governor, and make that office attractive enough to bring in men of the highest intellectual power and administrative capacity. I can understand the intense opposition which he will have to meet. Island Governments, which for centuries have enjoyed and treasured their independent existence, will be very reluctant to come under a federal administration


and accept a more economical administration in their own island. Now that we are asked to vote these immense sums of money, which we shall vote cheerfully, for Colonial development, this House is entitled to exercise direct control over the form of administration in the West Indies and elsewhere and in the Colonial Office. I want to put this very strongly indeed, because it is not confined to the West Indies. We shall have to carry the same practice further into other parts of our Colonial Empire. We shall have to consider the appointment of a Governor for East Africa; a Governor for West Africa; a union of the Rhodesias which would take over the responsibility of Nyasaland and improve its administration out of mineral profits, so that we shall have in every part of our Colonial Empire positions of high responsibility, which will attract and keep the very best men who will be content to spend several years of their lives in these offices and bring their special knowledge to bear on administrative, economic, and social problems.
I think my right hon. Friend will have a very severe task there, and will find it difficult to carry it through without the constant support of a Parliamentary Committee who will stand behind him in this and other policies. I should like to press that point upon the House and upon my right hon. Friend, because of the experience we have had in other parts of the Empire. We have seen how a purely administrative service, carefully chosen and ably manned, can become completely static in relation to the new social and economic problems which now confront us wherever we turn, either at home or abroad. The main corrective is to bring into the highest posts men having experience in public life, and a wide outlook, so as to graft on to the administrative system the knowledge of economic and social progress and the driving power which can only come, as a general rule, from experience in our own strong and virile public life.

1.36 p.m.

Mr. Riley: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) referred to the discontent and disturbances in the West Indies. I think that if he will reflect on the remarks he made, he will agree that his description of what took place was

rather a caricature of what occurred in the West Indies in 1936, 1937 and 1938. He spoke of bullet holes in the backs of houses, and recurrent revolutions. I was not aware that bullets had been flying about in Jamaica, Trinidad or Barbados. What happened was that demonstrations took place demanding better wages. Unfortunately, it is true that there was shooting, largely on the part of the forces, to try to bring the disturbances to an end. The hon. Member also seemed to be somewhat puzzled as to what were the conditions which made the present policy and the present recommendations necessary. I should have thought that he would have been well aware of the revelations that have been made during the last three or four years about the extraordinarily unsatisfactory social conditions, in the widest sense of the term, which have prevailed, and which still prevail largely, among the working-class sections of the West Indian Colonies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) has dealt at length with those aspects of the problem into which the Royal Commission inquired and on which they made their recommendations, I shall restrict myself to reminding the House of one or two outstanding facts. As recently as January of last year, there were in the town of Kingston, Jamaica, no fewer than 15,000 unemployed workers in a population of 73,000. In the three large towns of Jamaica, with a combined population of less than 100,000, no fewer than 14,000 patients attended clinics, in 1938, for the treatment of some form of venereal disease. In Kingston, Jamaica, in 1938, in two rural parishes, out of 2,207 school children who were medically examined, no fewer than 39 per cent. were found to be suffering from malnutrition. In December, 1937, there were in the Kingston poor-house, 842 inmates, although the accommodation was for only 500 inmates. These facts give some idea as to the conditions that have prevailed.
As some hon. Members have said, it is regrettable that we have to debate these recommendations without having the evidence of the Royal Commission before us. We have to form conclusions as to the recommendations without seeing the evidence on which they were based. However, those of us who have followed the conditions and developments in the


West Indies have sufficient evidence upon which to judge the merits of the recommendations. In spite of the fact that, for some reason or other, the Government have not thought it wise to publish the report of the Royal Commission, I think we ought to congratulate the Secretary of State for the Colonies on his immediate response to the Commission's recommendations, on the spirit and sympathy he has shown in trying to ensure that something practical is done to carry out the recommendations, and on the energy with which he is tackling the social sore that has been disclosed.
There are one or two practical questions I should like to put to the Secretary of State. One of the things which I welcome is the Commissions' recommendation, which is endorsed by the Government and the Secretary of State, that an Inspector-General of Agriculture should be appointed. That is one of the principal recommendations made for the new organisation which is to build up an organised system of amelioration, social welfare and economic progress. I welcome the inclusion of this key appointment of an Inspector-General of Agriculture to survey the whole of the agricultural needs of the West Indies. When I went to the West Indies just over a year ago, the impressions which I gained there convinced me that the outstanding problem in the West Indies, in dealing with the social conditions, is to concentrate on the development of the natural resources and the agricultural possibilities of these Islands. It is well known, apart from Trinidad and British Guiana, that in the West Indies the only means of development and progress is by way of agriculture. Apart from Trinidad and British Guiana, there are no other sources of economic progress, except by making the best use of the land. There are no minerals and no possibilities of great industrial development. The whole economy of the West Indian Islands, as far as we can see, is in making the best use of the natural resources. They are very fruitful and only need organisation and attention. I welcome very much thiskey position, the Inspector-General of Agriculture, whose prime duty is to survey the needs of the whole of the Islands from the agricultural point of view. In that connection I would like the Secretary of State for the Colonies,

when he replies, to tell us what has been taking place during the last 12 months.
The House will remember that in 1938 it was decided, following the disturbances in Jamaica and Trinidad—I am speaking of Jamaica in particular—that a sum in the neighbourhood of £500,000 should be provided in Jamaica to afford land settlement to deal with unemployment. A little later that sum was increased to £650,000, and after more than 12 months it has been understood that the Colonial Government in Jamaica were organising, vigorously and extensively, so that land settlement could absorb large numbers of unemployed, and the 15,000 in Kingston to which I have already referred. It would be interesting to know how far that work has gone—the numbers employed on public works and the numbers absorbed in the last 12 or 18 months by this land scheme.
In the White Paper on Colonial policy the Secretary of State informed us that it is the intention of the Government to bring forward legislation in planning expenditure from this new source, and to enlist the help of a Colonial Development and Welfare Advisory Committee composed of a number of official and unofficial members. That is to say, this body is to have the task of developing and advising on schemes for the administration of this £5,000,000 for the Colonies as a whole and how it is to be utilised. I want the Secretary of State, in setting up this Development and Advisory Committee, to be the brains for carrying out the schemes described in the White Paper, to tell us whether that committee comprises members with active knowledge and experience of working-class conditions and members who are associated with trade unions. The White Paper says that it shall be composed partly of official and partly of unofficial members, but the House will see at once that if this new policy of clearing away social unrest, social evils, inequalities and bad conditions is to be dealt with adequately and properly, there must be associated with it people who have the confidence of the working classes and who have the necessary knowledge and experience. I would appeal to the Secretary of State, in considering the composition of the committee, not to content himself with having on that body some retired, superannuated representatives of labour, but


people associated actively with the work of trade unions who are in touch with the working class, who know the conditions, who are in harness to-day, and who can make useful and fruitful contributions to the work.
In connection with the distribution of the £1,000,000 per annum to the development scheme for the West Indies to be under the administration of the controller of the central organisation, he will be independent of the Colonial Government. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the necessity, in connection with that, and the administration of the money, of not conveying unintentionally by administration to the respective Colonial Governments in Trinidad, Jamaica and British Guiana, that now that this new source of finance is available, and a new organisation is being set up, it is intended that the Colonial Governments need no longer carry out their duties as local governments responsible for local conditions?
As Members will be aware, in the report alongside the existing Colonial Governments and the finance in their own Colonies we are now creating a new body, a central organisation, and at its head a Controller, appointed by the Secretary of State, who will not be responsible to the Jamaica Government, the Trinidad Government, or the British Guiana Government. They derive their funds to finance schemes in these Colonial territories from Imperial sources. The Colonial Secretary might consider whether the Colonial Governments themselves ought not to make their contribution on, say, a pound-for-pound basis. The hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal benches mentioned a Vote of £19,000,000 for 10 to 20 years which we are to provide in legislation shortly. I suggest, therefore, that the Government representing this country have a right to say to these Colonies that as we are going to help them, they should make a contribution towards what we are doing.
An hon. Member opposite referred to Income Tax. It is notorious that whereas in this country we have an Income Tax which might rise in its higher reaches to 17s. in £, and in ordinary middle class circles to 7s. 6d., in the West Indian Colonies rich business men, oil, sugar and banana merchants, and so on enjoyed Income Tax of 2s. 6d. in the £. It

has recently risen to 3s. 4d. and three years ago it was only 2s. We have a right to say that if the Imperial Parliament do their share to help in the development of Colonial life and the improvement of social conditions, the people who derive large incomes and grow rich out of Colonial life must make an equal contribution to that of this country.

1.58 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I am afraid that I cannot join in the chorus of congratulation which has been showered on the Colonial Secretary because I take a more gloomy view than those who preceded me about the situation in Jamaica. I consider that, although some of the remedies indicated in the report are in the right direction, they will have to be applied very drastically and in a different order of precedence from that indicated in the speeches and in the report itself. We are facing now the result of a few years of mismanagement, deterioration and demoralisation in the West Indies. The situation dates from the times of slavery. In every country which has experienced slavery—the Southern States of America, parts of Africa, Liberia and Sierra Leone, where the slave problem has been particularly prevalent so far as its connection with Europeans and other parts of the world is concerned—there has been the social and economic demoralisation which there is at the present time in Jamaica.
A great many of the suggestions in the West Indies Royal Commission's Report are excellent in themselves, but they are rather technical. There is nothing which rouses tremendous enthusiasm in me—at any rate, not in the order in which they are put. I do not see in the report the steel framework of a new constructive policy which will put the West Indies on their own feet as economic equals of other countries. Take the proposals in pages 9 to 10 of this report. There is a number of proposals for social welfare, a long-term programme of social reform, and so on, ending with a statement that the expenses of the new organisation amount to £100,000 per annum, which should be borne by the West Indian Welfare Fund; and the further suggestion that there should be an increase in the Income Tax in the West Indies to bring the rate up to something like the rate it is here. I am not sure that that will do very much good.


In the West Indies there are two methods of finance. One is a grant from the Imperial authorities and the other an increase of Income Tax.
In addition, there are other proposals. One is to increase the income obtained by the West Indies from the export of sugar. There is a pathetic reliance in this report on the idea that there will always be an expanding market for sugar. There is likely to be nothing of the sort. There is a controlled market for sugar in the ordinary way, and whatever the temporary effect of the war may be, it is only a temporary effect. Furthermore, there is a fact which is not recognised and ought to be brought into prominence. It is that, in the opinion of those whose word now carries so much weight—the higher dietetic authorities—it is probable that the amount of sugar consumed by the world is in excess of what ought to be consumed and of what is dietetically desirable. That statement will be found in the report of the technical committee of the League of Nations Committee on Nutrition. Whereas they indicate the importance of increasing the amount of milk consumed, increasing for many places the amount of meat consumed, and increasing in practically all places the amount of fresh vegetables and fruit consumed, the one article of common use in diet which they suggest should be decreased is sugar. You cannot found an expanding prosperity on what is likely to be a decreasing consumption.
With regard to cocoa, did the Commissioners forget, when they were dealing with that important item in the Budget of the West Indies, the enormous importance of the West African cocoa trade? There must be a co-relation between West African cocoa and West Indian cocoa, or both of them will go down into a condition where the prices will not be remunerative either to the producer or to those who handle it for merchanting. If we are to deal with cocoa adequately there must be control of world supplies as there is control of sugar. The report also refers to fruits. There is and should be an expanding market in fruit, but it will not be a very tremendous market.
Does the Colonial Secretary really think that by giving a subsidy from the Imperial Exchequer and by raising the Income Tax of the West Indies all round, or getting them to do it themselves, we shall be able to finance the big social schemes

which are requisite to put the West Indies on their feet? I suggest that we cannot have an Empire run by subsidies. Agriculture here is run by subsidies, and we cannot have this done by subsidies.
May I also draw attention to a painful fact relating to the expenditure, and that is the proportion which the cost of administration in the West Indies bears to the general expenditure, I wonder whether the House is aware that 40 per cent. of the income of the West Indies is spent upon administration. Will this always need to be so? If the conclusions of the Royal Commission are adopted, we shall be creating another great service which will add to the cost of administration. Shall we be able to pay for these services? The point I am leading up to is that throughout this report there is no definite suggestion of how to create the new wealth which is necessary both to feed the people in the West Indies and to finance the schemes of administration which will be needed. We cannot feed the West Indies out of their own poverty, and I venture to say that this report, admirable as it is in patches, does not see the problem in real perspective and does not face the brutality of the real facts. The West Indies are so poor that they are down to starvation level. I suppose all in the special group in the House who are discussing Colonial affairs know what the term "predial larceny" means. I confess that when I first came across the term I did not know its meaning. It is the stealing of crops, poor people going out into the fields at night to steal food which otherwise they could not obtain, a condition indicating the most abject and miserable poverty; the kind of thing which occurred in this country when men and women went out into the fields in the hungry forties to steal turnips. That is the level of poverty in the West Indies.
Another fact to which sufficient attention has not been drawn, although the report stresses it very definitely, is that there has been in the West Indies, and it is going on now, a very rapid increase in population. The report says that the rapid growth of population has the effect of preventing improvements in various economic and social directions, but, unfortunately, it does not make proposals which are adequate for dealing with that


position. How are these growing populations to be enabled to feed themselves? It cannot be done by the method of putting up the Income Tax or getting an increased subsidy from the Imperial Exchequer. They must produce more food themselves and the only way they can do that is by working with their own resources and their own people. The Commission have various suggestions and one of them is a very good suggestion, but, unfortunately, it comes rather late in what I regard as a somewhat disconnected series of suggestions. They say that the most urgent need of the West Indies is the development of peasant agriculture.
Of course, there is a series of other recommendations, including the appointment of an inspector-general of agriculture, the increase of agricultural research and land settlement, but only on page 24 of the report do we get the suggestion which I think ought to be regarded as the most important in the report. It is that the Government should take powers for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land needed for land settlement and similar purposes. I am quite prepared to believe that welfare officers and other expert officers will be appointed, and that they will do their work very well, and that this will confer certain advantages on the people of the West Indies, but the only thing which will really cure the evil of the West Indies is that the Government should take compulsorily large amounts of land and put it at the disposal of the West Indian people themselves in order that they may work on that land and grow the food they need.
The insistence upon the growing of export crops is a fundamental error. What should be of first and primary importance—I confess that the Commission certainly agree to this up to a point—is agricultural production from the Africans own holdings for the support of the Africans themselves. We ought to put forward a definite plan of subsistence agriculture for the Africans on a very large scale indeed. We have in the West Indies a considerable territory, and if we take in Guiana and Honduras a still greater territory, with a total population of 2,500,000. It is not an enormous problem and it can be settled, but these people must be able to get on to the land

themselves. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) regarding the number in the poor house at Kingston and the number with various tragic allowances are very discreditable indeed, as indicating a condition of poverty in a country where there is a great deal of rich land and a splendid climate and where, with reasonable labour, anything will grow.
Furthermore, we have a situation in the West Indies which is quite different from that in this country. In this country and in some of our Dominions we have to persuade people, with some difficulty, to go on to the land, but the West African, who is the man who is in the West Indies at the present time, is an agriculturist who loves working on the land. When he went to the West Indies, even as a slave, he took his own seeds with him. Some of the crops grown there now and those grown in the Southern States of the United States originated in seeds brought by the original slave population. He worships the land, he loves it, and in his own country he is an indefatigable worker on his own communally-held land. Not long ago I paid a visit of some three months to Nigeria, where the bulk of the population of 20,000,000 are entirely self-supporting on their own communally-owned land, and would not need anything which is imported or any cash—which they get from selling export produce—if they did not have to pay taxes to the British authorities. In parts of Nigeria there is a self-supporting population of a density approaching the density of the population of Belgium supported entirely off the land.
The Africans in the West Indies, who have maintained many of their customs—I am sorry to say they still go in for shifting cultivation—are people who, given the opportunity and the land, would be able to produce all their own food. If we get the West Indian African people on to the land and let them produce everything which they require for themselves, they can do it. Let them grow their own food. Let that be the first principle in the reconstruction of the West Indies, because it will increase their well-being and increase their standard of life, and then there will be a foundation upon which to build. You have the foundation of a healthy population who will be properly fed, and to whom you can apply


the social services which are mentioned in this White Paper. But the first preliminary is that you should have people who are fed and who can provide for themselves and produce new wealth. The prosperity and the improved standard of life of the West Indians should be the foundation of any economic reconstruction of the West Indies. Base your policy on that, and then all the admirable suggestions of this report can be added. Attempt to put into force a policy which you pay for by this expedient of an increased Income Tax, on incomes which will very likely be falling—because your economy is wrongly founded—and by subsidies from the Imperial Exchequer, and you will not get your healthy economic organisation, because you will not get your new creation of wealth.
I also want this new creation of wealth for another reason. I think it is extremely important from the standpoint of world Colonial policy that all the individual citizens of the Colonies should be economically independent, and the Colonies themselves should feel that they really are independent. This is needed as a basis not only for ordinary life but for greater political independence. I was glad to hear an hon. Gentleman opposite say that he looked forward to West Indian federation. I have looked forward to West Indian federation for very many years, and I want West Indian federation to be a federation which will enable the West Indies to take up the status of a Dominion, which I believe they could do at the present time. I think they should be given that status, and that it should be quite clearly laid down that that is the aim which the Government hold before them, with regard not only to the West Indies but with regard to all the Colonial Dominions in the British Empire. But in order to make that political equality of status a reality, you must give their citizens individual economic independence; and the only way you can do that in the West Indies at the present time is, not by tinkering with preferences for sugar—although that may be some alleviation—not by putting up the Income Tax—although that may bring some revenue—but by getting the Africans on to the land and enabling the Africans themselves to create new wealth, and build up from that foundation.

2.18 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): This House is a superb instrument for the levelling of constructive criticism at the policies of His Majesty's Government, and the critical faculty of the House is customarily as sharp in Colonial Office Debates as it is in Debates on any other question. I readily agree that the criticism which has been offered on the different parts of Colonial policy, both at Question Time and in our occasional Debates, has very often resulted in unsatisfactory positions being righted and the general policy of Great Britain in her Colonial administration being improved. However, although criticism is always present on these occasions, Colonial policy, like other Imperial policy, is a matter which really is raised above ordinary party controversy. There is a great deal of agreement between the different parties in the House on Colonial policy. There is certainly, I think, complete agreement between Members in every part of the House as to what is the main object of our Colonial policy, and that is the steady improvement of conditions, and the promotion of the well-being in the widest sense of the term—physical, mental and moral—of our fellow subjects in the Colonial Empire. I think that this Debate to-day has been conducted in that spirit of complete agreement on the main objectives of our Colonial policy, and of co-operation in trying to pursue that objective.
I would like to thank hon. Members in every part of the House for the spirit of co-operation in which they have addressed themselves to the subjects which have been raised to-day. The greater part of the discussion has been concerned with the report of the West Indies Royal Commission, but two other matters have been referred to in the course of the Debate, and I should like to say a sentence or two about each of them. I hope the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) will forgive me if I confine myself to a sentence or two, but I understand that it is required that we finish this Debate at a fairly early hour, so that some other discussions may follow, so I shall have to clip my remarks as much as I can. The hon. Member asked me whether I could say anything this afternoon with regard to the discussions I had with M. Mandel,


the French Colonial Minister, last week-end, and particularly whether I could give the House any information about the machinery for co-operation which has been established. I gave an answer to a Question at Question Time this morning which sets out that machinery, and I would ask my hon. Friend if he would ask his hon. Friend to study that answer, and I think he will find that it contains the information which he requires.
The second non-West Indies point was raised, in this case by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), who referred to a question in which I know he is keenly interested, the growing of flax in Kenya. May I say in a sentence that I am extremely anxious to encourage the production of flax in Kenya, and to increase it as far as may be wise during the war? The main difficulty at the moment is to procure seed for sending out to Kenya. We have made certain arrangements about the seed, but it has not been as easy as I had hoped it would be. But I assure the hon. Member that anything that can be done to promote this production during the war will be done by the Colonial Office and by the authorities in the Colony itself.
As I say, the main part of the discussion has been on conditions in the West Indies, as revealed by the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Some hon. Members have referred to the fact that over a number of years—over two or three years at any rate—we have been receiving a series of reports—reports on labour disturbances in two or three Colonies, a report on nutrition in the Colonial Empire, the report of Major Orde-Browne—reports which indicated that conditions in the West Indies were not satisfactory in many respects. I accept that entirely, but I do think it is a disservice to the reputation of this country as a Colonial Power to speak, as some people, perhaps outside this House, are inclined to speak, as though the bad conditions in the West Indies were unique or as though they were much worse in the West Indies than in other parts of the world.
The fact is that the sort of unsatisfactory conditions that prevail in some matters in the West Indies can be discovered in many other countries—I was almost inclined to say all other countries throughout the world. It is a feature of

the stage of social evolution at which human society has arrived that in country after country there are unsatisfactory housing conditions, there are sometimes unsatisfactory conditions of labour, there are inadequate medical and health services, the education system has not been developed to its maximum power; and, for the matter of that, in many countries which are far richer in natural resources than the West Indies are we can find conditions at least as bad as those which have been revealed in these reports. Of course, the condition of things in the West Indies is made much more difficult than it would otherwise be, because the West Indies are comparatively poor. It has been pointed out in this Debate that only one of them has any mineral wealth of any great importance, Trinidad with its oil. Apart from that, the West Indian Colonies have been dependent very largely on agricultural production. Therefore their economic and financial capacity, as well as their social standard in housing, health and so on, has been rendered wry difficult indeed.
I do not say that as an excuse. Nothing that can be said about the West Indies can be accepted as an excuse for complacency about the situation there to-day. We are very far from being complacent about the state of affairs revealed in these reports. Because we felt that, although we were doing a great deal gradually to improve conditions, the pace was not fast enough and that new methods were required in some cases, if conditions were to be improved, as they should be, the Government decided some 18 months ago to appoint a Royal Commission to go into the question. It is not the case that the membership of the Royal Commission was to be—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones)—of a whitewashing character; on the contrary. We deliberately chose members who were distinguished not only for their ability, but for their independence of view. We chose as members of the Commission certain people who could represent the views of each of the three big parties in this House. The Royal Commission was given a completely free hand as to the recommendations it would make. It was given very wide terms of reference, and we did look forward to the Commission making a conscientious and thorough inquiry into all the conditions, social and political. We asked them to


make whatever recommendations they thought were required to tackle the situation properly.
I think we can congratulate the members of the Commission on having done their work with very great thoroughness and in a very constructive spirit. The Government appointed the Commission in that sort of situation and with that kind of view, and pledged themselves before the Commission started that the report and recommendations would not be put into a pigeonhole and forgotten. We pledged ourselves to act to the best of our ability and judgment upon the general recommendations which the Commission would present. Despite the fact that war has intervened and that certain other preoccupations engage our attention, the Government are fully determined to carry out that pledge to the utmost. I think that the West Indies can rest assured on the word of the British Government and on the word of this House that the recommendations will be acted upon energetically and will be faithfully adhered to.
A few weeks ago, in a statement of policy, we gave some indication of the way in which we were going to work. It is a little difficult for me at this date to make any further pronouncement of policy. The Debate is taking place in a sort of interim period. In the course of the statement of policy a few weeks ago we accepted straightaway, and without qualification, some of the most important recommendations of the Royal Commission. We accepted the proposal that there should be a Controller of Development and Welfare for the whole of the West Indian Colonies. We accepted also the important recommendation of which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) spoke, relating to the appointment of an inspector-general of agriculture for the whole of the West Indian Colonies. Perhaps above all, we indicated clearly that, in our own financial provision for Colonial development and welfare generally, we were allowing for an expenditure in the West Indies which would be the equivalent of the vast expenditure recommended by the Royal Commission.

Dr. Guest: May I say—

Mr. MacDonald: We are extremely short of time, and I should be glad to go on with my speech, if the hon. Member

will forgive me for not giving way. We have already made a statement accepting three or four of the main recommendations of the Royal Commission. In the statement of a few weeks ago the Government said that the other very varied recommendations were being all taken up with the Governors of the Colonies, and that before we arrived at a decision and made an announcement on those recommendations we should have to have consultations with the Governors. Those consultations are proceeding, but they have not yet been completed. We will, in due course, make an official statement of Government policy on these various matters. At the present moment we are, as I have said, in an interim period between the first statement and the other which is promised for later. Although a great deal of work on preparation and planning is going on in the West Indies, nothing has ripened to the extent of enabling me to make any further statement of policy to-day. Hon. Gentlemen have, therefore, been freer in being able to express their opinions on many of the long-term recommendations of the Royal Commission.
With regard to the establishment of local industries in the West Indies, the extension of the franchise, constitutional changes, the desirability of introducing up-to-date labour legislation in the West Indian Colonies, the question of Income Tax and so on, I would ask to be excused from making any expression of view. They must fall to be dealt with in due course, when the examination of these questions with the West Indian Governors has been completed. I can promise the House that we are losing no time in having a thorough examination of these matters and we shall make a further statement of policy as soon as we possibly can.
In these circumstances I had better content myself this afternoon with answering some of the specific questions which have been put to me. I will simply give a straight answer to straight questions, and if, as I fear, I shall not give answers to all the questions, I promise to look through the Debate again and to write to hon. Gentlemen on points which I shall not be able to deal with in the space of the next 10 minutes. The first question was as regards schemes for spending the £350,000 which, we said in


our White Paper, we were to devote to organisation which would give immediate employment in the area of the West Indian Colonies. Perhaps I might give one or two examples of the schemes which are actually approved since the White Paper and of some which are already in hand. Let me give simply a statement of what is proceeding in Jamaica. We have already approved the expenditure of £82,500 on schemes for swamp filling, clearing land for settlement, road construction, road improvement and cleaning of rivers. Take another case. In British Guiana we have approved an expenditure of £28,125 on reconditioning of drainage. We have approved an expenditure of £7,625 on the reconditioning of roads in that Colony, and of £16,220 on the reconditioning of buildings. This sum of £350,000 spread over the West Indian Colonies will be spent on that kind of constructive work which will help in the well-being of the community as a whole and which will give employment to the people who otherwise would remain out of work.
The second question I was asked was whether the £500,000 a year which is to be spent on various research schemes in the Colonies was available for research in the West Indies. The answer to that is, "Yes." The West Indies will be exactly in the same position as other Colonies in making allocations out of that sum for assistance. I was also asked in regard to the recommendation of the Royal Commission concerning the expenditure of £1,000,000 a year on welfare and development, whether that expenditure would continue for 20 years, and a great deal of importance was attached to that period of 20 years. The hon. Member for Shipley asked whether that recommendation had been accepted, in view of the fact that the statement in the White Paper seemed to indicate that we are committed only to 10 years. The statement in the White Paper is to the effect that we will introduce legislation to provide for the expenditure of £5,000,000 a year on development and welfare for 10 years in the Colonial Empire as a whole, and that statement does refer to this development policy over the whole of the Colonial Empire.
I think hon. Members will agree that it is rather difficult to look ahead more than

10 years in connection with a vast area like that; indeed, perhaps one is being optimistic in looking ahead 10 years, except that I have complete confidence in the fact that there will be a British Colonial Empire not only 10 years hence but for a very much longer period. The fact that this policy is guaranteed for 10 years does not mean that we shall stop the expenditure of money on these works after 10 years. In fact, the statement of policy itself makes it clear in paragraph 9 that the whole question will come up for review towards the end of this 10-year period and that we shall then be able to consider in the circumstances of that day to what extent it should be continued beyond the first 10 years. In this statement there is a very strong implication that it will go beyond 10 years, because the last sentence in paragraph 9 says that so far as concerns the provisions for development and welfare the position will have to be reviewed before the expiry of the initial 10-year period. There is a strong indication there that over the Colonial Empire as a whole this policy will extend beyond the 10years. When one comes to the position of the West Indies in particular there is a double implication that this policy will continue beyond 10 years, because, as the hon. Member has pointed out, we have declared formally that we do accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission generally, that we are anxious to act in the spirit of those recommendations, and, of course, one of the important recommendations is that this assistance shall be spent on a period not of 10 years but 20 years.
Two or three other questions were asked, and I will deal with them as briefly as I can. I was asked whether the Advisory Committee on the welfare and development of the Empire as a whole would have its functions extended to the West Indies as well as to the other parts of the Empire. The answer is "Yes." The Controller of the West Indies, with some £1,000,000 at his disposal, will not be independent of the Advisory Committee. He will send his plans to the Advisory Committee, and they will go through the Advisory Committee in the same way as other matters in connection with the Empire. I was asked when we would set up the Controller to begin work. I would point out that we cannot establish him until we get legislation through Par-


liament, but we are already considering a short list of names of those who might be suitable candidates for the post, and he will be established with his advisers as soon as the situation permits us to do it. Finally, I was asked whether we would accept the recommendation with regard to the establishment of a Labour Advisory Committee in the Colonial Office. I can only say that the recommendation is receiving consideration, but before taking any decision on it one way or the other, I would like to have a chance of consulting my labour adviser, Major Orde-Browne, who at the moment is in the West African territories but who will be back in this country before very long.
I am afraid I have not answered every question that I have been asked—questions dealing with sugar and so on—but I will get in touch with hon. Members who have asked those questions and will give the information. I would only say, in conclusion, that I think this Debate does show again that not only the Government but the whole of this House are committed to carrying out in general the recommendations of the West Indian Royal Commission, and I hope that this Debate will reinforce the impression which has been created in the West Indies that this country will be as good as its word in this matter. I am certain that the Debate will help the Government in getting ahead with this work as rapidly as it possibly can.

2.42 p.m.

Mr. Paling: I understand that time is short, and I will therefore do my best to keep within the time-table. First of all, I would like to say that I, with many hon. Members in this House, particularly hon. Members on this side, were very disappointed at the non-publication of the report. A few weeks ago I happened to be talking with a man interested in Colonial affairs. We were discussing the fact that the publication had not then been made and was a long time in coming, and he suggested that it might be that when the publication was made it would be abridged. I said I should be surprised if it was abridged, but I never dreamed that it would be stopped altogether, that no report would be made and no evidence issued. I dare say that in the minds of the Colonial Secretary and the Government there are good reasons which have made them take this course. They may think so,

but I think it is possible to argue in the opposite direction. It was perhaps the worst thing that could be done that this evidence—I do not think I am using too strong a word—should be suppressed. Some of the facts with regard to the West Indies, of course, are well known now, and I do not think it would have made very much difference if this report had been published, although it may have been bad and may possibly have given some ammunition to our enemies, because it would have given us the background to enable us to understand why these recommendations are being made and would have made us understand the vital necessity for doing something in particular in the West Indies. For that reason I am sorry that it has been thought fit to suppress the report.
Generally speaking, we welcome the recommendations. We think that most of them are on the right lines, and that most of them are in advance of recommendations which have been made by previous Royal Commissions. We are hoping that they will be implemented and will be put into operation, and that a real, drastic attempt will be made to deal with this festering sore in the West Indies. I know that one of the reasons why recommendations of Commissions in the past have not been put into operation has been in some cases lack of money to deal with the recommendations made. There has been a fairly good attempt to overcome that trouble here. A million pounds is to be spent in a year in the West Indies and about £5,000,000 a year in regard to these matters concerned with the Colonies. That should allow something of a fairly substantial nature to be done in overcoming these problems which confront us at the present time. On the other hand, it has become, almost, a custom under which, when Commissions are sent out to investigate troubles that have arisen in various parts of our Empire, their recommendations will be pigeon-holed, and nothing will be done about them. I hope that that will not happen in this case. 
These West Indian problems are very old. As long ago as 1865, when trouble occurred in Jamaica, a Royal Commission investigated it, and stated that the evidence which they had taken tended to show that the movement in a great measure was a no-rent movement, aggravated by the fact that there were no rent


laws or tribunals suited for the easy settlement of labour problems. We, on this side, have been pressing on every conceivable occasion for the setting up of machinery which would deal with these recurring labour troubles in the West Indies. A recommendation to that effect was made by the Commission in 1865, and we have only just got to the stage of dealing with it. Something has been done now, but there remains much more to be done in the creation of trade union machinery, so that these people may be enabled to fight their own battles without having to depend on subsidies from this country. It is a fact that poverty in the West Indian Islands is rampant. Wages are low, hours are long, diet is bad, health and medical services are bad, housing is bad, education is terribly deficient; nearly everything making for the welfare of the people is lacking.
I went through Major Orde-Browne's report, and I want to suggest that, for good or ill, you have in the West Indies what might be called a landless proletariat. The land has been taken over, and used for big estates. You have a wage-earning population in Trinidad; you have an industrial population also. A tremendous proportion of the working-class people are dependent on wages. If you want to raise the standard of life among the people and get rid of the troubles that affect them at present, you must find ways of improving the wages of these scores of thousands of men and women. You must also deal with the long hours and with the intermittent labour system, which is very common indeed. Of course, unemployment is rife also. In Jamaica, in the banana and sugar industries, which engage about 60 per cent. of the wage-earning population, wages for labourers are as low as 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per day. Those, I admit, are the lowest rates: skilled labour is much better paid; but the bulk of the labour is unskilled. Conditions are not much better in Trinidad; they are about the same in Barbados; and in some of the lesser islands, they are even worse.
I could read out quotations, which I have here, about nutrition, infantile mortality, and poverty generally and the low standard of life. How can it be otherwise, when the income on which the bulk of the labourers depend is so low? I hope

that the Colonial Secretary will make a real, first-class attempt to deal with this matter, and to improve these wages, so that the people can feed themselves adequately. A great proportion of the people do not get the food which is necessary to keep them in bodily health. In some cases they are badly fed simply because they cannot afford proper food. The diet they have does not provide sufficient nutriment. That arises from their poverty. The same thing applies to their hours of labour, which are abominably long. In the sugar and banana industries, I believe, piece-work is the rule. Even there, hours are long. In the industries where wages are paid by the day, the hours are very long. In the baking industry, men work from 70 to 80 hours a week. A Committee considered this industry, and recommended a week of well over 60 hours. Their excuse was that that would be much better than the hours which are being worked now. In Jamaica, the infantile mortality rate was about 200 in the last year for which we have figures. All this indicates a terrible state of affairs, which must be drastically dealt with, as early as possible.
I was interested, when reading these recommendations, to learn that it is the intention to put as many of these people as possible on the land. It is a pity that they have not had the opportunity before. That is the best thing that can be done, even if it means breaking up the big estates. These people should be taught to grow their own food, and, as the Commission says, to grow a bigger variety of food and to reduce their present dependence on export, which makes their poverty even worse in years when exports are bad. In paragraph 19 the Commission say, with regard to non-agricultural industries, that they do not recommend that the West Indian Governments should finance or conduct speculative industrial enterprises, but that there are certain industrial projects which the Governments might do well to foster, especially a cement works in Jamaica, which might be incorporated with a scheme for the development of local manufactures and local products in Jamaica and elsewhere. I am rather disappointed to see that recommendation. I should have preferred that either the Commission, which is to administer the £1,000,000, or the Government themselves, should experiment in this direction.


Capitalism has had its opportunity in these islands, and, to a great extent, the failure must be laid at the door of capitalism itself. It has gone there for profits. It has exploited the islands and the islanders for the sake of profits. We are paying for it. We are having to find £1,000,000 a year to try to bring some prosperity back to the islands.
That being so, I should have liked the Commission and the Government to face this possibility, whether, in face of the fact that capitalism has had its chance and failed, it was not wise to develop it on other lines and let the Governments themselves develop the Colonies in the interests of the people, and not so much of the white people as the natives. This again is an invitation to the capitalists to come in. I think this is wrong, and I am sorry to see it. It is highly probable that you will not be able to get an overwhelming number of these people on to the land. I want to see as many as can be got there, but the number will be limited, and you will have to trust to industries of some description to employ at least a fair proportion. I should have liked the Government to launch out in this direction and say, "We have tried all this for generations. Capitalism, with its profit making, has had its opportunity and failed. This is the result. Now we have to come in and try to retrieve the situation. We have to spend public money in order to retrieve it and we will take it out of the hands of the capitalists and do it ourselves." There is a growing disposition to do that in this country and for Governments to take these things into their own hands. I do not see why they should not have done the same thing with regard to the West Indies. With regard to trade unions, I hope the Colonial Secretary will give the fullest freedom possible to the people to develop their own trade unions, with all the rights and liberties that we have in this country. In the course of a few years, if they have those rights, that will tend to rectify the low wages position. They have done it in this country, and, if they have the same opportunity, they will do it out there.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to crush the desire of Governors in these Colonies to suppress any attempt on the part of the low wage-working

population to better their conditions. We are always bringing to his notice cases of labour troubles which are suppressed, or meetings which are stopped, and the Administration seems to use its power, not to allow the people to ventilate and remedy their grievances so much as to keep them in the dark. There has been too much of it in the Colonies in the past, and it is operating in the West Indies to-day, in spite of what happened two years ago. Let these grievances be ventilated, and it will teach these people to stand on their own feet. I also want to see them helped in the direction of political facilities. We have adult suffrage and full trade union rights. We ventilate our grievances openly, and very often we get remedies. We have learned to stand on our own feet, and, if it is necessary that these people should stand on their own feet and have full trade union facilities, it is equally necessary that they should have political facilities also. There is no question about their being able to use the vote if they get it. They are as capable of using it as we were when it was first given to the working classes, and they would make just as intelligent a use of it. If the recommendations of the Commission work in these directions, the right hon. Gentleman will find in a few years that he has done one of the best pieces of work he has done in the whole of his administrative experience.

PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

3.2 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I desire to make a brief reference, first of all, to a matter which I raised on the Adjournment some time ago, the question of the publication of a White Paper dealing with the Anglo-Soviet negotiations of last year. The British Government decided that they would do so before Christmas. I am sorry that it has been decided, as a result of the views expressed by the French Government, not to do so. The people of this country are entitled to have our Government's account of the negotiations and not to have to rely solely, as is the case at present, on the account given by M. Molotov some time ago. There has been published recently some kind of Polish White Paper dealing with this subject, and I hope in due course, after further deliberations and discussions with our Ally, the Govern-


ment will give the British public their own account.
The impression left on my mind as the result of the Debate on Tuesday is that the Government were found guilty of culpable indecision and delay in dealing with the question of Finland. At the same time, I think we have had a lucky escape, and I think the expedition would have been an exceedingly hazardous one. With regard to the future, I cannot help thinking that Russia has burnt her fingers very badly and has learned a very severe lesson and is not likely to be anxious to indulge in expeditions of the same kind in future. I hope it will be the object of our Government so to conduct their diplomacy as to neutralise Russia in this war as far as they can. There is evidently no love lost between Messrs. Hitler and Stalin, and I should have thought a good deal might be done by wise diplomacy in cultivating that lack of love between those two allies. We are able now to concentrate on the real "Enemy No. 1"—Hitler—and that certainly will engage the whole of our attention.
While the country is united on that task, I believe it is also united in desiring to see it carried out with very much more vigour than has been the case up to the present. I have had an opportunity during the last month or so of addressing various gatherings of youth groups in different parts of the country, and my experience is that, in the main, they agree that our objects are right and that we had no alternative, but they have very little confidence that a great deal of good will come out of it all. One might just as well be frank. Their attitude is: Can we expect the people who got us into the war to win the war and to make a satisfactory settlement of it? Rightly or wrongly, I find that they are very much inclined to take an exceedingly pessimistic view of the possibility of success in such circumstances. I understand, from what the Prime Minister said, that the question of some kind of reconstruction of the Government is under consideration. The Government is composed at the present time, as we all know, of some very competent and some very incompetent persons. I will not mention any names. We all know them. I do not see any of the incompetent ones here at the moment.

There are some Ministers who do not come in either class, who are gifted but distrusted. They are most estimable persons, but they are widely distrusted. I propose to mention them and to say that I feel—and I think it is widely felt throughout the country—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Privy Seal are very heavy liabilities both at home and abroad. It is no good disguising the fact that that is so. They have many warm supporters and friends.

Mr. Boothby: Where are they?

Mr. Mander: Over on that side, but they are not here to-day. The Government will not really be at full strength while either of these two eminent and distinguished persons is in office. The Prime Minister, possessing as he does the support and good will of the great bulk of his supporters, and being, as one can clearly see, in full physical vigour, is obviously going to carry on his task at the head of the Government. I hope that in coming to any conclusions on these matters he will accede to what I think is the general wish of the nation, that there should be, as in the last war, a smaller War Cabinet, without departmental duties and possessing one individual who will be responsible for the main economic activities of the Government.
I would say a word about the question of the neutrals. Appeals have been made by different Ministers from time to time for neutrals to come in, and, of course, one cannot help remembering that the question they are likely to ask themselves is, "What did you do when you were neutral?" The question is not one to which we can give a very satisfactory reply. Therefore, I am convinced that the only way by which we can get the support and co-operation of the neutrals is by showing, by our vigour and determination, that we intend to win the war in the shortest possible time. That and nothing else will rally the neutrals.
I also want to make some reference to the economic blockade, which, I am sure, is not nearly as strong or as effective as it might be. The agreements with neutral countries appear to have been made on the basis of their re-export trade to Germany on the scale obtaining immediately before the war, that is, at a time when


Germany was building up her reserves. Certain features in the agreements with Belgium and Norway run quite contrary to agreements which were made in the last war, when neutral countries received their own requirements only. I greatly regret that we should have so far departed from what was a wise decision. Let me give an example of what has been happening. Figures have recently been published of raw cotton exports from the United States to neutrals. I will compare those for the period September to November, 1939, with those for the same period in 1938. I ask the House to note these figures. Imports of raw cotton from the United States, in the case of Sweden, increased four times; in the case of Norway and Belgium they doubled; in the case of Holland, increased three times; in the case of Yugoslavia, increased by 50 per cent.; in the case of Hungary, increased 20 times; and in the case of Switzerland increased no less than 160 times. I wonder what explanation the Minister of Economic Warfare can give for such an extraordinarily unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Has the hon. Member made any check upon those figures in order to ascertain how much of that represents a transfer of trade, formerly done through entrepot ports like Hamburg, for supplies to the countries he names? I would like to support the trend of the hon. Member's argument but I should like information on that point.

Mr. Mander: I dare say there may be qualifications and reserves about these figures but, even allowing for that, I think they are sufficiently startling to call for some explanation. In view of the shortage of time, however, I do not want to be drawn into a discussion. I would refer, however, to new imports from Vladivostock into Russia and, possibly, through to Germany. Last January, there was imported 2,000 tons of tin against nothing at all in the same period of the year before. It is new trade and Germany is keeping hundreds of trucks available on that line for its transport. I believe that the Government have this matter under consideration and I can only urge them to give the closest thought to it and act as soon and as effectively as they possibly can.
One of the most important questions is that of the supply of iron ore from Sweden

via Norwegian territorial waters to Germany. The Prime Minister suggested the other night that the leaks and the gaps in the blockade were very small indeed compared with the effect of the blockade as a whole. That is an untrue picture to give, in connection with this important item. Germany is relying for two-thirds of her ore on this source of supply, on which her industrial activities depend. Therefore, it is a matter of vital importance to her and to us that action should be taken. I think it will be generally agreed that, as far as Germany is concerned, we are fully entitled, under international law, to take any action, by way of reprisal, we think fit because of her complete overriding of law in these matters and her sinking of neutral shipping. But the question of dealing with the neutrals is a different matter and I want to present certain arguments which would justify us in taking action inside neutral waters.
I contend that Norway has failed to maintain the neutrality of those waters. She has permitted, not willingly, the sinking of three ships in her waters by German action. To be specific I will give the names—the 'Thomas Walton"(British) of 4,460 tons, the "Deptford" (British) of 4,034 tons and the "Garoufalia" (Greek of 4,703 tons. There is the case of the "Altmark" too. You have four specific cases where Norway has failed in her international duty. But there is more than that. Norway and Sweden were under an obligation under the Covenant of the League to permit British and French troops to go through their territory to the help of Finland. They refused that permission. They broke the Covenant of the League and refused to carry out an international obligation. I say that, on all those grounds, there is justification for the action by us—which will be in accordance with international law—of going in and stopping those vital sources of supply for Germany, which are being used to manufacture guns and ammunition to destroy British citizens. In this connection I should like to quote an interesting article which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" written by "Pertinax," in which he said:
It will be remembered that last month following on the "Altmark" incident the British Navy was within an ace of assuming continu-


ous control of the territorial waters of Norway to make up for the deficiency of the Oslo Government. The last we heard of it here was that the whole question had been postponed since it was foreseen in London that immediate action would clash with the then contemplated military expedition to Finland. The opinion is expressed here in competent quarters that the matter ought to be reconsidered.
I entirely agree and I hope it will be reconsidered. I want to put this point. I think there is a way by which we could greatly strengthen our position legally all over the world in dealing with these matters. The Prime Minister said on Tuesday that, in our action in regard to Finland, we were acting in accordance with the Covenant of the League. Why could we not obtain the same backing for any action we may take in connection with our war with Germany? Incidentally, the Prime Minister referred to the fact that Finland was a neutral, but, of course, there is no neutrality when the Covenant is put into operation. The proposal I submit is that we should take steps to see that the question of German aggression against Poland is brought before the League Council. We do not want the impression created that the Council of the League deals only with left-wing aggressors. All aggressors are equally objectionable whether they are left, right or centre. I hope that will be considered and brought before the League under Article 17 which deals with non-members. Article 16 of the Covenant reads:
Should any member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13, or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations.
This means that under international law all those relations would be automatically cut off. The effect on the position with regard to iron ore, and the position in many parts of the world, would be profound. It would also have the advantage of bringing into operation the regime of the Straits under the Convention of Montreux, which says, in Article 25:
Nothing in the present Convention shall prejudice the rights and obligations of Turkey or of any other High Contracting Parties members of the League of Nations arising out of the Covenant of the League of Nations".

I appreciate that there are great difficulties, and I recognise those difficulties to the full. I simply ask the Government to give careful attention to the matter, and if they feel that an opportunity presents itself, at any moment in the course of the war, I hope they will act. I believe that they could thereby greatly strengthen our legal position and enable us to take action which would assist in obtaining a victory. The other day, I had an opportunity of discussing the question of war and peace aims with a group of Frenchmen, and I thought that one of them put the position very well when he said, "What we want is a war."

Mr. MacLaren: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mander: We want a war neither of vengeance nor of illusion. I venture to hope that England and France will never be separated in future and that we shall build up an all-inclusive organisation on that basis which will preserve the peace of the world. I hope that, at the end of the war, one of the armistice terms will be that the German people shall be able to see for themselves who has won the war, and that the Allied troops will have an opportunity of showing themselves in Berlin and other German cities. This would not prolong the war by a single day or cost a single life, but it would prevent the Germans from saying, as they said of the last war, that they never lost. I hope also that in any peace terms that are signed, we shall insist on the signatures not only of those who may then be in power in Germany—perhaps the democratic element—but also of the Army, the Monarchists and the Nazis, if there are any left, so that one section will not be able to throw the blame on another section.
Peace can be had at any time. The enemy know perfectly well the terms on which they can have peace. I do not think the position can be better put than it has been by certain third parties; I refer particularly to the speeches made by President Roosevelt and the Pope, who laid down the broad moral grounds on which alone stable peace could be established. I hope it will not be long before the enemy realise that this country is determined and united on victory, and that it is much better for them to accept


now, that reasonable place in the family of nations which is freely offered to them whenever they want it.

3.24 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I do not wish to delay the House for more than a few minutes, because various other hon. Members wish to speak. I think the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has rendered a service in raising the general question of war policy, even at this late hour, before the Easter Recess. Somehow or other, important as the West Indies undoubtedly are, I think it would be a little inappropriate if we rose for the Recess without once again giving a little consideration to the one question, which, in the last resort, matters more than all others, and upon which the fate of the West Indies themselves must ultimately depend. From time to time some of us on these benches, and on the benches opposite, have expressed criticism of the Government during recent weeks. I think I may say that nobody on either side of the House doubts the good intentions of the Government. Their plans may also be excellent. But what we have reason to complain of is the delay in obtaining decisions from the Government on vital matters of policy. Either the decision has not been given at all, or it has been given too late. When I heard the Prime Minister in the Debate on Wednesday say that "we cannot be hustled," I could not help bringing my mind back to the question, for example, of the Ministry of Supply, or of the storage of raw materials, about both of which subjects we had many Debates in this House. I could not help thinking that with a little more hustling then we might have found ourselves in an easier position to-day.
The truth is, and there is no use blinking it, and no useful service is performed by shirking the issue, that we did, in fact, begin this war, although we had plenty of warning, with a shortage of raw materials which, in the circumstances, was quite unforgiveable. I will not specify them. It would not be in the public interest; but hon. Members know what they are, and they continue to this day; and we are paying the price of these shortages in the holding up of production at home and of our export trade. All that we want to feel sure of is that everything possible is being done now. What is

production? Is it at the maximum? If it is, why have we still 1,400,000 unemployed? That seems to me very difficult to explain after six months of war. Although there may be certain technical explanations from the Minister of Labour, I feel we ought not to have on the register 1,400,000 unemployed after six months of war. Administrative difficulties were increased inevitably; but in so far as they have been due to lack of co-ordination and lack of centralised direction, I submit that there is a great responsibility on the Government, who have refused so far to accede to the repeated requests of hon. Members on all sides of the House to produce a better machinery of Government for the conduct of the war.
The hon. Member who has just sat down dealt in some detail with the offensive side of our economic policy—the blockade. I do not propose to go into that in any detail, but I would say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Economic Warfare that I, for my part, feel convinced that while he has done, in many respects a very good job of work, still too many goods are being imported into Germany. Without wishing to criticise him unfairly in any way, there are one or two points to which I would ask him to direct his special attention. First of all, is he quite satisfied that too much is not going in through Trieste and Genoa? I think the figures of these ports, and the increase of merchandise going in, are very disturbing. I know that we have a delicate situation to deal with here, but we are perfectly entitled, in view of our command of the seas, to take more energetic steps to stop contraband going into Germany wherever we possibly can.
My hon. Friend was quite right when he drew attention to the case of Vladivostock. If you examine the recent figures of the United States exports to Vladivostock, it will be seen that there has been a rise which certainly cannot be justified on ordinary trading grounds. These goods are certainly not intended for China or Manchuria. We know where they are going. They are going, slowly and rather gloomily, down the Trans-Siberian railway; and I submit that we ought to take every possible step to prevent these goods getting into Germany. I would only ask my right hon. Friend to direct special attention to the Italian ports, and to the Far East and Vladi-


vostock, because they are two most vulnerable points.
My hon. Friend who opened the Debate referred to cotton. I think that the figures he gave are very formidable, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree with me. Here there are diplomatic difficulties, and we do not want to get into any serious trouble with the United States; but I am sure that the mere fact that Hamburg has ceased to be a centre of the entrepot trade in cotton does not justify the fantastic increases mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Passing from the purely blockade aspect to the general question of monetary policy, I wish, although I do not expect an answer this afternoon, to express my opinion that the fact that by this time we have not blocked foreign assets in this country is really scandalous. I do not think hon. Members realise that any foreigner, except an actual enemy, can sell securities in the London market and take sterling in exchange. It is surely time, in existing circumstances, that we established an absolute control of foreign exchanges, and blocked all foreign assets in this country. Week by week we are losing foreign exchange which may ultimately prove to be invaluable to us; and I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he will be good enough to ask the Treasury to consider this point, which I believe to be one of vital importance; and I am not alone in that.
There is one last point which, now that we have the pleasure and privilege of the presence of the Minister of Economic Warfare, I should like to mention. That is the question of the Balkans and the Danube. I am not very happy about what is going on down there, and especially about the position in Rumania. According to my reports, Bucharest is swarming with German agents and industrialists who are establishing an absolute economic stranglehold of that country, and are buying up all the oil companies and elevators and the barges on the Danube. During the last few months we have had a great advantage because the Danube has been frozen, and for that reason the Germans have been unable to make use of that channel on a big scale. The Danube is now beginning to unfreeze, and I would ask my right hon. Friend what steps—and they must be very vigorous steps—

against Dr. Clodius and Dr. Schacht are now to be taken. We want to see that when the Danube thaws it will not become a great channel for imports into Germany of vital commodities, including oil and other raw materials. We ought to leave no stone unturned to prevent that happening, if we can possibly manage it. Nobody who has any knowledge of what is going on in the Balkans can feel happy about the position down there. I am entitled to speak on this subject because about half a dozen of us in the House on both sides have been pressing this question of trade with the Balkans not only since the war broke out, but for the past two years. If we had taken energetic and vigorous action in time, we should have been in an entirely different position from that in which we are to-day. Why should those of us who feel as we do on this and kindred subjects not acknowledge the fact that we are paying for our sins of omission not only since war broke out, but also during the critical months which immediately preceded it? We cannot get away from that fact.
To follow up what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said on the general question of foreign policy I have spent the last fortnight in neutral countries, and I would say to the House, "Do not let us deceive ourselves that the capitulation of Finland has not been a serious blow to the Allied cause." It was a very serious blow both from a practical and from a psychological point of view. I was in Switzerland when it happened, and the one comment made to me was this, "It is another example of the fate which befalls those neutral countries who do what you say is their duty." That is the argument we were up against. The neutral countries say, "It is all very well for you to complain of us, but look what happens when we do stand up—Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Finland. It may all be quite unavoidable, but it is not encouraging from our point of view." That is the argument with which we are confronted.
I would say this about the Finnish tragedy—it is a point which was not really made in the Debate of Wednesday, although I feel that in some respects it is the most important of all. There was a general recognition in neutral countries that in the case of Finland we were faced with most formidable obstacles to send-


ing her assistance, and there was a preumption that those obstacles had proved insuperable. If we had stuck to the fact that we had done all we could in the way of giving practical assistance to the Finns, and owing to the attitude of Sweden and Norway we could do no more, we could have got away without any serious loss of prestige. The folly, in my opinion, was that at the eleventh hour, when we knew that the capacity of the Finns to continue was almost finished, when they were, in fact, exhausted, we proceeded to announce to the whole world that we were prepared to send an expeditionary force to Finland if only they would ask for it. Why invite a rebuff at that particular moment? Why demonstrate to the whole world that once again we would have liked to do it, but were too late? It is that which did the damage; not so much the fact that we were slow in sending materials as that at the eleventh hour we invited a rebuff by saying we would send an expeditionary force when we ought to have known—if we did not know it we ought to have known it, because they knew it on the Continent—that it was by then too late to be of any real use.
It was the ineptitude of that action which caused the fall of the French Government, and that is what worries some of us most. As I say, it is not the intentions of the Government, which we know to be excellent, but the manner of their execution, which is at fault; and I believe that in the matter of the Government's policy on the whole of the Finnish business the real criticism is not that we did not do what we could, but that when we finally offered to send an expeditionary force it was already too late. I would say before I sit down that the one incident—and it is worth remembering by those who are disposed to criticise hon. Members who press for a more energetic policy with regard to the neutrals—which has done us real good in Europe in recent weeks is the "Altmark" incident. It has done us more good than anything else, in Norway as well as elsewhere. But unfortunately it has not been followed up.
Coming back to this House after spending a few weeks on the Continent of Europe, one does feel that we are to some extent out of touch with what is going on and what is being thought and felt upon the Continent. I opened a newspaper this morning, and I saw that my right

hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) had resigned the chairmanship of the National Liberal party. I have no objection to that. He is perfectly entitled to resign from the chairmanship of the National Liberal party if he wants to do so, but I ask myself—what does it mean at this moment, the National Liberal party? It was quite an important thing when the National Government was originally formed. But the National Government was formed to keep us on the gold standard, and to carry out a policy of collective security and disarmament. These things may have been very desirable, but they are somewhat out of date at the moment. And yet we keep on with all this paraphernalia of National Liberals and National Labour and Whips' offices.
I say that this nonsense cannot go on much longer as far as this House is concerned. We are fighting for our existence, against a most formidable foe. A great Englishman once said, "Neglect no means"; and I suggest that it is time this House followed the courageous example of the French Chamber, and insisted on the formation, without further delay, of a War Cabinet of not more than half-a-dozen men without portfolio, who can devote their whole time and attention to the conduct of the war; and that these men should be chosen without any regard to personalities or parties, but should be the best men available, for the service of the State at the present time. Although this request may not at this moment find a very ready echo in this House, I believe that it will find a heartfelt response among the ordinary men and women of this country, and also in the armed Forces.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: The interesting speeches which have just been delivered seem to me to be almost incapable of answer in the short time available and without a Member of the War Cabinet present, so I will be very brief, because, interesting as they were, and though I agree with most of what was said by the hon. Member who has just sat down, I feel that this is to some extent a hang-over from Tuesday's Debate. There is one aspect of the subject raised by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) in which we are very interested, and that was in


reference to the announcement yesterday that the Government were quite firm now in their decision, after consultation with our French Allies, to make no publication at all of a White Paper on the negotiations between the Anglo-French delegation and the Russian authorities between the end of April and August of last year.
I most thoroughly agree that we require the united support of all our people in this country, and the Government should not be blind to the existence of a considerable section of dissident opinion, with which perhaps we on this side are in very much closer contact than they are. One of the principal criticisms at present levelled against those of our party who hold what I regard as the sound view is that these critics have a much better case than we think they have because the British Government have been afraid to publish the actual facts of the negotiations between this country and Russia. I believe myself that there is nothing at all of which the Government need be afraid in the publication of these facts. I recognise, with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, that it is always difficult if you are engaged in joint negotiations with an ally, and the French were parties to these consultations. But I do say that those of us who have to begin to-morrow morning, whilst Ministers are on holiday, meeting our political conferences and dealing in debate with this question are left in a very difficult position if, in spite of those months of negotiation, you cannot give us any idea, in Parliament or elsewhere, as to what were the real facts of the negotiations between this Government and Moscow before the actual signing of the Soviet-German Pact on 22nd August.
I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to let his colleague the Secretary of State know that we want that decision revised at the earliest possible moment, because we want to answer a section of dissident opinion which is very strong. Although it may not be nearly so numerous as some people think, it is very strong. I think therefore that we have a right to be put into a position to defend our attitude, in view of the fact that in the opinion of many of us, but for the pact between Moscow and Berlin it would probably not

have been possible for the destruction of Poland to take place.

3.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) raised questions which had been raised, I think, on three or four occasions before as to the publication of the documents describing the negotiations that preceded the signature of the agreement between Germany and the Soviet Union. I shall say at once to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member that we appreciate that full knowledge is of great value in explaining the case to the nation. I am not, however, in a position to add anything to what has previously been said quite categorically by the Prime Minister and which was to the effect that the whole question of publication has been reconsidered in company with the French Government.
The negotiations were conducted jointly with the French Government; we have jointly come to the conclusion that we are unable to publish the documents in question. I must reply at once to the right hon. Gentleman and say that there is no question of our being afraid to publish these documents. But there is such a thing as the public interest. When we debate foreign affairs, as we do so frequently, I have sometimes thought that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen under-estimate the limitation which must be placed upon those in authority, especially at a critical time like this, in making public everything in the foreign sphere.

Mr. Mander: Why did you give the promise, then?

Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister has referred to that point, which I do not deny, and has said that, after the undertaking which was given to the House, the matter was reviewed with the French Government and that, on reconsideration, it was decided not to publish. The right hon. Gentleman said that while we went off on our holidays he was going to meet his friends in consultation. We always attribute to the right hon. Gentleman a very assiduous attention to duty, but let me assure him that that is not a monopoly nowadays and that Ministers will be in attendance over the holidays


while the right hon. Gentleman is talking to his friends.

Mr. Alexander: Electors.

Mr. Butler: Yes. We can assist him in that duty, which I agree is very important at the present time, from our position in Whitehall, with the latest information, with the possible exception of those opening remarks which I have just made.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton is to be congratulated on producing a very tasty rehash of several questions which have been fully ventilated in this House up to date, and on doing so, if I may say so, in his usual attractive and efficient manner. He said that he had been in contact with the youth groups all over the country. The Government are fully inspired by the desires and aspirations of youth at the present time, but when the hon. Gentleman says that these youth groups are distrustful of those Members of the Government that got them into the war, I must indignantly repudiate any suggestion that it was the Members of the Government who got this country into war. Let us place this blame fairly and squarely where it belongs, that is, on the leaders of Nazi Germany, who, with their senseless ambition and ruthless activities, have necessitated the British Empire rising as one man to defend the ideals and manner of living in which we all unitedly believe. Those are the shoulders upon which the guilt for landing us, as the hon. Gentleman described it, into this war must be laid.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton raised one or two points about the economic blockade. I have the benefit of the moral, and indeed of the physical, support of the Minister for Economic Warfare. There is not time for two Ministers to address the House, and therefore I shall not spoil the excellent command of his subject which my hon. Friend has by giving a version of the answer which he will no doubt give better than I can; but I will say that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are valid and serious points. I can assure him that they will have my hon. Friend's attention, and, taking the question of the cotton exports, I can inform the House that this question is being actively attended to at the moment and

its importance and seriousness realised. There are various considerations, and a very important one was quite rightly put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, namely, the question of the entrepot trade. But there are also considerations such as market conditions and the rush to buy before a possible rise in prices which have affected the amount of cotton exports going into the various neutral countries to which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton referred. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the trade passing through Vladivostok, and there again the matter is being actively considered by His Majesty's Government. He also raised the question of the blocking of foreign assets. That, too, is being dealt with, as is also the question of the Balkans. In referring to Rumania I would like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen that the Germans are not getting it all their own way in that part of the world.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton referred to the question of iron ore from Sweden, and he asked that the importance of this commodity in the German industry should be borne in mind. I can assure him that that is the case. He also raised the question of whether in giving our help to Finland we could not have insisted that Norway and Sweden should give passage to our troops under Article 16, Section 3, of the Covenant. As the House will remember, that lays down that the nation concerned should give right to the passage of troops across its territory. The answer to that I think is that the Norwegian and Swedish Governments, and indeed the Scandinavian Governments as a whole, had already made their attitude on this subject perfectly clear. I went to Geneva in December on behalf of the Government to the meeting at which Russia was expelled from the League in view of her attack upon Finland. There were Debates upon a League Resolution which was then passed. It was legitimate at that time to hold that the full application of Article 16 was not excluded from that resolution, but the representative of Sweden made a specific statement on behalf of himself and the other Scandinavian States in which he made—and these are his words:
Every reservation in so far as the resolution involves any measure coming within the scope of the system of sanctions.

Mr. Mander: It was purely a unilateral action.

Mr. Butler: Whether it was a unilateral action or not, the fact is that that represented the attitude of the Scandinavian States and under the circumstances we did not feel that any useful purpose would be served in pressing those Governments to assent to a position such as the hon. Gentleman desires when they had already stated their attitude. This does not mean that we accept their attitude but it does mean that in considering this question from the particular angle that the hon. Gentleman suggests we had no alternative but to understand the position in which these Governments placed themselves. In a previous question the hon. Gentleman wanted us to refer the Polish case to the League and he said that if we did that, starting with Article 17 and then bringing into operation Article 16, this would automatically cut off exactly what Germany desires to enable her to carry on the prosecution of the war. That again, I think, is a misunderstanding of the present position. If we had merely to invoke Article 16 and trust that the neutrals concerned would automatically cut off all the commodities necessary to Germany for the successful prosecution of the struggle, it would indeed be an easy world. But I recommend the hon. Gentleman to revert to a close study of the League of Nations documents of which I have a healthy exhibition here, and to revive his memory, to read, for instance what happened when the principles of the Covenant were reviewed in September, 1938. He will see that there was no agreement as to the automatic application of Article 16, such as he expects; and, in fact, had we taken the action that he suggests, it would be most unlikely that we should have achieved the object he has in mind.
He referred to the Montreux Convention. There, I think, the operative clause is that which says that if Turkey is a belligerent she may allow warships to pass through the Straits. That, I think, may be taken to cover the general point that he made in connection with the Montreux Convention.
Several remarks have been made on the subject of neutrals, arising out of the Finnish campaign. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen said that this Debate

was a hang-over of the Debate of last Tuesday.

Mr. Boothby: It is true.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman says so. It may be true, but the hon. Member would have better understood the Government's case if he had more closely studied the Prime Minister's speech.

Mr. Boothby: I did study it.

Mr. Butler: I recommend him to study it again. He says that our help was offered to Finland too late. If he rereads the Prime Minister's words, he will see the full explanation of the reason for the preparation of the force; he will see the dates for the preparation of the force, and the statement of the Prime Minister that the force was ready almost two months before it was asked for by Field-Marshal Mannerheim.

Mr. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend think that the French Chamber considered that the help was offered in time?

Mr. Butler: I am answering the point in the British Parliament, and I can say no more than that. But, in the position I hold, I have the opportunity to appreciate neutral opinion on the Debate held last Tuesday, and, in particular, on the two speeches of the Prime Minister. I say, without hesitation, that neutral opinion has been very powerfully impressed by the Debate, by the dignity of the Debate, by the exchange of views freely expressed, and, in particular, by the Prime Minister's own speeches. That, I think, is the most effective answer to any doubts of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, which he has a perfect right, of course, to express to this House.
The only other point raised was the general attitude of the Government towards the neutrals. Whatever may be the real or imaginary difficulties in carrying out the obligations of the Covenant, to which I have referred, let us remember that in all the discussions the spirit of the Covenant has remained intact; and it is that spirit which should animate our attitude at the present time. If we recall to the neutrals the years during which we worked together at Geneva, I feel sure that that will be the most effective way. If we do it in company with our ally France, if we devote our attention to de-


veloping Anglo-French co-operation and if, on our side of the wall, we develop our view of Western civilisation as opposed to the barbarity which has taken place on the East side of that wall, that, I think, will be an initiative which will create confidence in the cause that we have taken up.

It being Four of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 20th March.

Adjourned till Tuesday, 2nd April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 20th March.